You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RomeoStevens comments on Ketogenic Soylent - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: BrienneYudkowsky 27 September 2013 01:17AM

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

Comments (101)

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

Comment author: RomeoStevens 27 September 2013 04:52:29PM 1 point [-]

Someone really ought to figure out why it's so easy for some people to maintain a healthy weight, and so difficult for others.

Gut bacteria is the best hypothesis.

Comment author: Lumifer 27 September 2013 05:01:47PM 4 points [-]

s/the best/currently fashionable/

Yes, I know about the fecal transplant papers.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 27 September 2013 07:09:29PM 0 points [-]

are there others that are actually plausible?

Comment author: Lumifer 27 September 2013 07:23:33PM 3 points [-]

What do you mean, plausible?

Gut flora is not much of a hypothesis to start with -- it just says "we think the composition of gut flora affects obesity but we have no clue about the mechanism". It's a black box with gut flora involved.

For a trivial example, we can substitute "leptin regulation" for "gut flora" and get a similar hypothesis -- also black-box and also quite plausible.

Comment author: James_Miller 28 September 2013 03:45:42PM 2 points [-]

Fecal transplants provide a way of testing the gut flora hypothesis.

Comment author: Lumifer 30 September 2013 04:30:58PM 1 point [-]

Exactly what is the hypothesis that you're testing? That gut flora affect metabolism and, as a consequence, a variety of things including weight? Sure, I agree. I suspect most everyone will agree.

But that's a far cry from being the "best hypothesis" as to why some people easily gain weight and some do not.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 27 September 2013 09:59:07PM *  2 points [-]

There are known pathologies of gut bacteria that affect lipid metabolism. That less extreme and thus hard to detect variants exist seems a reasonable claim.

Comment author: brazil84 28 September 2013 05:10:54PM 1 point [-]

Yes, see my post above. Basically the idea is that everyone has an internal feedback system which sends a signal telling you whether or not to eat more food. Just like eyesight, for the most part this system worked reasonably well in the ancestral environment. However the system isn't perfect, particularly when exposed to a modern diet. (By analogy, a lot of people have trouble reading without glasses.) John Walker refers to this system as a "food clock."

If your internal food clock does not work correctly, and you don't exercise conscious control over what you eat, then your weight will tend to drift upwards over time.

I find this hypothesis to be very plausible and consistent with the available evidence.

As far as the gut bacteria hypothesis goes, I am skeptical because if it were correct then obesity could be easily combatted with so-called "nutrtionism," i.e. by adding or subtracting a few key components from the diet but otherwise eating ad libitum. As of yet, nobody has found a nutritionistic solution to obesity.

Comment author: James_Miller 28 September 2013 03:43:43PM 0 points [-]

This is my (relatively uneducated) guess as well. I think that foods which didn't exist in our ancestral environment plus antibiotics have done nasty things to many people's gut microbiome and this plays a big part in the obesity epidemic.