Treat obesity as physiology, not physics (Gary Taubes)

Nature News ^ | 12 December 2012 | Gary Taubes

[neverdem]

The energy in–energy out hypothesis is not set in stone, argues Gary Taubes. It is time to test hormonal theories about why we get fat.

“It is better to know nothing,” wrote French physiologist Claude Bernard in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), “than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek.”

Embracing a fixed idea is one of the main dangers in the evolution of any scientific discipline. Ideally, errors will be uncovered in the trial-by-fire of rigorous testing and the science will right itself. In rare cases, however, an entire discipline can be based on a fundamental flaw.

As a science journalist turned science historian, I have written at length about how and why this may have happened in obesity research. I have suggested that the discipline may be a house of cards — as, by extension, may much research into the chronic diseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes.

Before the Second World War, European investigators believed that obesity was a hormonal or regulatory disorder. Gustav von Bergmann, a German authority on internal medicine, proposed this hypothesis in the early 1900s.

The theory evaporated with the war. After the lingua franca of science switched from German to English, the German-language literature on obesity was rarely cited...

---snip--

NuSI aims to fund and facilitate the trials necessary to rigorously test the competing hypotheses, beginning with inpatient feeding studies that will rigidly control dietary interventions for participants so that we know unambiguously the effects of macronutrients — protein, fat and carbohydrates — on weight and body fat. These studies will be done by independent, sceptical researchers. This may be an idealistic dream, but we have committed ourselves to the effort.

[Hugin]

None the less, your original assertion, “The ONLY scientific weight formula proven countless times (and disproven only for a few extraordinary cases) is: (lower Calories )+ (exercise) =weight loss” is totally disproven. If you start with that, enything else you ahve to say about it is suspect.

[JRandomFreeper]

I strongly suspect television to be involved. Time watching TV = time not studying.

/johnny

[caveat emptor]

You can eat unlimited calories and do no excercise on the Atkins diet, and lose weight. It’s all about carbs, especially “bad carbs”.

IIRC it's not "unlimited" but more like "as much as you have the appetite for". Appetite suppression is achieved by getting into ketosis through minimizing carbs. N'est c'est pas?

[wintertime]

Good luck controlling the constant hunger that follows. ( Hunger and satiety are hormone driven,)

[Hugin]

True, you do lose appetite after a while. But in the early stages you can eat thosands of calories a day and still lose weight. In fact you will probably lose the fastest in the first few weeks.

I do acknowlege that Atkins is not a long term solution for most because most people just won’t stay on it. Carbs are just too tempting. But that doesn’t make Atkins wrong.

[EEGator]

I’ve found the Paleo Diet works quite well. It’s also something you can stick with.

[PA Engineer]

Yeah. Sad, because Gary Taubes' article nails it on the physics (the science of actually measuring by physically burning calories) to physiology (metabolic cycle) of diet. The perspective that the human body is a calorimeter is simplistic at best if not down right ignorant.

Tragically, that is what got us the government food pyramid and the consequent epidemic of metabolic syndrome.

[Paradox]

You can eat unlimited calories and do no excercise on the Atkins diet, and lose weight.

As a former physique nut, I have been on countless diets, my favorite being the low/no carb diet. I can tell you that I was able to maintain and even gain some weight on an atkins type diet, I had to cut back before I saw significant weight loss. That said, man can I pound down the food...

It really is an energy in/energy out equation, what the diets do is modify either or both sides of the equation. For me, low carb diets curb my appetite, thus I eat less and lose weight.

[neverdem]

More than 3,000 epigenetic switches control daily liver cycles affecting blood glucose concentrations.

FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.

[Theoria]

Yes, and it plays against the narrative that someone that is overweight is lazy or etc, or in some narratives that our 'poor' are living high on the hog.

Well sure, they 'eat' but the wrong things, and are unhealthy as well. Sugars and bad carbs, aren't hallmarks of being healthy, just a symptom of our farm subsidies and food production.

[desertfreedom765]

Ah, I have read both books and both are excellent.

I suspected that his work was the basis of your chapter about Ike. Now I know :^)

[JRandomFreeper]

The perspective that the human body is a calorimeter is simplistic at best

Calorimeteter. My first experience was with a bomb calorimeter.

For some people, that might be a good analogy, including the gasses generated.

Personally, as a guy that spent years cooking for lots of different kinds of folks, from warfighters in the field to fine dining patrons... I'm betting physiology plays a large role.

/johnny

[SIDENET]

I’ve found the Paleo Diet works quite well. It’s also something you can stick with.

Yep. The Paleo diet works for me, too.

[sipwine]

This is such a great subject, and I have become a huge fan of Gary Taubes. He challenges us on this issue, because there are no absolutes when it comes to weight gain/loss.

Everyone is an “expert” in nutrition...as a dietitian I’ve learned and then unlearned that it is all about calories in - calories out. I no longer buy into that. Maybe for some, but not for all...if not most. Gary Taubes’ book Why Do We Get Fat is well done (no pun intended). However, it isn’t the answer for everyone trying to gain weight, so how can it be a perfect answer for those trying to lose weight....Hmmm.

My son can eat the grocery store whole and not gain a pound (5’9...103 lbs)...others see a Burger King commercial and gain weight. Perhaps we should study those who remain thin and don’t gain weight along with those who are obese.

The answer at the end of the day will be genetic, cellular and endocrine in nature, which means...no one is an expert in nutrition...yet.

[PA Engineer]

Well sure, they 'eat' but the wrong things, and are unhealthy as well.

Sadly, many are following "expert" government advice.

I had my own journey with this nonsense. Mine was precipitated by medical issues with a clotting disorder. I followed the "experts" and was gaining weight and throwing blood clots. Of course the experts placed me on lipid medicine and blood thinners, but were unable to control my sky high triglyceride levels (660+) and reduced HDL's.

I began studying the issue and was flabbergasted by the prevailing diet and cardiac wisdom. There were the dissenters, however the prevalent wisdom was a ticket to metabolic syndrome, deteriorating health and premature death.

I went on very low carb (VLC) and began training for masters swimming. Amazingly, independent of the exercise my weight melted away and my lipid profile improved dramatically. I also stopped with the stupid and dangerous lipid medicine. It made no sense. What made sense was the ratio of HDLs to triglyceride. On VLC my triglyceride levels dropped to 40 with a modest increase in HDLs, however the ratio fell under 2. This resulted in both improved clotting issues and well documented (medically) reduction in plaque burst risk.

I do agree it is difficult to stay on the diet, but the benefits are a constant incentive.

Pol Pot and Stalin were pikers compared to what our government has done to the American people.

[JRandomFreeper]

which means...no one is an expert in nutrition...yet.

AMEN BROTHER! Preach it!

I've got anecdotal events on both sides, but it's going to be in the mitochondria where the real answers are found.

/johnny

[Theoria]

That is true. Our Gov't food pyramid and other nutrition material should be instinctively thought of as questionable. I mean, wouldn't a real liberal and conservative question stuff like that?

That's what I find odd, that there isn't that much blowback against particular subjects like that, perhaps there is too much money involved.

[PA Engineer]

Personally, as a guy that spent years cooking for lots of different kinds of folks, from warfighters in the field to fine dining patrons... I'm betting physiology plays a large role.

I agree, however I am leaning towards a genetic predisposition for young onset insulin resistance.

[PA Engineer]

That is true. Our Gov't food pyramid and other nutrition material should be instinctively thought of as questionable. I mean, wouldn't a real liberal and conservative question stuff like that?

I have pondered that over and over and over again. I believe it has a great deal to do with the psychology of "settled science" and believing in authority. Every trip to Sam's Club or Walmart is bewildering when you can see the growing obesity epidemic in front of your face. I was trying to remember if I ever saw a scooter in the stores two years ago.

[JRandomFreeper]

The energy source for cells? Mitochondria. Which have their own genetic legacy.

It gets down to how certain chained proteins break down input.

And we didn't cover that very well in culinary school.

God made a complex and wonderful universe.

Far be it from me to have a frigging clue besides what I see as 'accepted dicta' is about the same as a truckload of used chicken scratch.

We need to learn about this so uneducated folks like me can make rational decisions.

/johnny