"Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it! This, of course, is a tremendously controversial idea. However, the model shows that increase in food more than explains the increase in weight."
This doesn't actually follow logically. I know Mr Chow is implying that there's a lot of data that this interview obviously doesn't present, but there are serious problems with this thesis on the face of it. For one thing, if obesity correlates directly with the availability of food, then the most obese people ought to be those to whom food is most available. But the rich in our society are proportionally not as obese as those who face periodic food shortages; and low-income children are proportionally shown to be at much higher risk of suffering from obesity. [1]
Not only that, but the statement that food production has simply gone up and therefore food prices have simply gone down is incredibly... simplistic. There have been arguments for years [2] about what food prices have gone down or up and how that may or may not have affected obesity.
I want to believe that there's data behind this fellow's claims, but I can't help but feel as though, no matter what the data is, summarizing it in the way he does is deceptive.
This may not be exactly on subject, but "Well, what do people do when there is extra food around? They eat it!" is something that has been observed in several consumer-focused studies. I do not remember whether it was Pespsi or Coca-Cola, but one of them found that the consumption of their drink would increase significantly when they sold 2L bottles instead of 1.5L ones. When a 2L bottle is bought, consumers would simply drink it just as fast as a 1.5L, which gives credence to the above point. This was a fantastic way to increase their business. This has been observed among several consumer products companies, in different categories: a bigger packaging leads to higher consumption.
It is not too far-fetched to think the same could apply for Food. It's probably best to ask the question to people working for food products companies such as Nestle or Danone, where I expect a number of researches must have been conducted.
I, too, am skeptical of that thesis. However one plausible way of thinking about it may be that because food prices are so low (for certain foods, at least), restaurants can increase portion sizes without incurring a very high penalty. If people are attracted to higher portion sizes, then those restaurants would continue to do so, resulting in fat people. I can think of a couple of reasons that people would like larger portion sizes: a) it improves the value-proposition ($x amount of food for just $y dollars), and b) it is satisfying to feel full.
Your point about the rich is an interesting one. A conceivable explanation for this could be that higher-end restaurants tend to have a different value-proposition than lower-end ones: instead of focusing on quantity, they focus on quality.
Finally, I think the point you bring up about the summary being misleading is a good one. Reporters are generally not known for accuracy when reporting on scientific matters.
The rich can afford to eat at restaurants with routines that simulate a robust meal without truly ingesting too many calories, and because it's healthy to do so, this is precisely what the rich do. This is why portions are so tiny at gourmet restaurants so the middle class balks at them as a total rip-off. In a sense you pay to be given pomp and circumstance and less food!
With a degustation you'll probably have quite a few courses. 9, 10 maybe more. Maybe matching wines.
If you are just fine dining you will get larger portions but will still go starter, entree, main course, dessert.
The portions are small because you cannot eat that much. The prices are high because at a good restaurant they are serving food that is hard to make and they do it well.
A lot of fine food can be very rich. So I am not sure about not ingesting too many calories. Perhaps relative to eating an entire pizza on my own. But not to eating a regular balanced meal.
Theories like this fail to take into account that the children of rich people don't get fat, even if they are poor themselves. Consider, grad students, interns, artists, etc, none of whom can afford to eat at gourmet restaurants.
I think the more interesting theory (Gary Taubes's I believe) is that most of us have the causation backwards. People are eating 'all this food we have' because they are obese, not that their obesity is caused because they ate all that food.
Math alone is the wrong tool to solve a problem that is biochemical and behavioral in nature. On an individual level, the fix is straight-forward: eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars. I have yet to encounter someone who has done this and not seen dramatic results.
It's a trickier problem on a broad sociological level, though. The sugar peddlers have an incentive to create and maintain the addiction, and yet they're also just giving people what they want, and at the end of the day, it's still a free country. We can't ever expect all people to abandon sugar any more than all people have abandoned smoking.
As much as I hate to agree with libertarian dogma, I think the USDA is a big part of the problem. They've been been promoting high-carb diets and "moderate" sugar consumption for decades, and it certainly smells like yet another government-industrial complex protecting existing profits.
We shouldn't get so worked up about exactly what we eat. When we look around the world, we see that people who eat a modest diet and are physically active every day live long, healthy lives.
If we go back to what we would think of as the dark ages of nutritional knowledge, there were lean, healthy, athletic people back then. And it wasn't just people who ignored all the nutritional dogma of the day, either. The people who swallowed it most conscientiously were lean as well. It seems like so much has changed since then, but has it? Go to the gym today and you'll see a bunch of people who work out, eat paleo, and have low body fat. Thirty years ago they'd still be lean and in great shape, but they'd believe an entirely different dogma about nutrition.
If what we ate was anywhere near as important as how much, then the people who were most disciplined about following the old low-fat, relatively-high-carb diets would have been at a disadvantage compared to people who paid no attention and half-assed it. Or, if the low-fat guys were right, they should have been leaner than the guys who thought milk and eggs were the secret. But consistently, decade after decade, people who are disciplined about diet and exercise are lean and fit no matter what they believe. When people let their discipline slip, most of them end up overweight to some degree. The entire sum of our nutritional knowledge has yet to change that.
>> eat more "good" fats, and little or no grains and sugars.
Grains, specifically cereal grains, may serve as a limited dietary source of fiber, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. As with everything, it is best to exercise moderation but I wouldn't recommend fully removing grains from the diet.
Refined (table) sugar is a common offender but small dosages of fructose and sucrose from a daily serving of fresh fruits and vegetables are justifiable.
Those high-carb diets were probably useful several decades ago, especially in countries that suffered from the world wars. I think it had good intentions but due to those commercial influences, the advice wasn't adapted to fit modern lifestyles.
"And it’s something very simple, very obvious,
something that few want to hear: The epidemic was
caused by the overproduction of food in the United
States. ...This, of course, is a tremendously
controversial idea. However, the model shows that
increase in food more than explains the increase
in weight."
This is analogous to saying:
"What caused the increase in car accidents?"
"And it’s something very simple, very obvious,
something that few want to hear: The car accident
epidemic was caused by the overproduction of cars
in the United States. ...This, of course, is a
tremendously controversial idea. However, the model
shows that increase in cars more than explains the
increase in car accidents."
By using the phrase "overproduction of food" he is using too broad of a statement that doesn't describe the problem in an addressable way.
It makes it sound like we could just cut food production across the board and prevent obesity.
.
I would argue the problem isn't the quantity, rather the quality. Quality in regards to:
- Nutrients vs Fat and sugars
- Number of meals a day and the time we eat those meals
- Sugary drinks vs Water
- Appropriate meal size
- Fast food vs home made meals
The solution for the 21st century is going to take more than cutting food production. Just as curbing injuries from car accidents will take a different approach than limiting US car production.
> I would argue the problem isn't the quantity, rather the quality
But you didn't, argue. You simply asserted. You threw out the article's theory by constructing a straw-man you didn't even bother tearing down, then proceeded to inform us of your views.
> By using the phrase "overproduction of food" he is using too broad of a statement that doesn't describe the problem in an addressable way.
Cut food production, food prices rise, people can't eat as much. It's an extreme solution, perhaps, and one with more political obstacles than I care to think about right now, but it seems "addressable" to me. What if we stopped some of the farm subsidies that don't make sense? What if we significantly increased taxes on unhealthy foods, which is probably justified since unhealthy foods probably directly lead to a rise in healthcare costs down the line? (Now I get to sit back and wait for someone to post facts from one or more of the localities that have tried raising taxes on e.g. sugary foods. I love the Internet!)
FWIW:
A few years ago, someone verbally mentioned to me that some study found evidence of some sort linking type of bacteria in your gut to obesity. (No, I don't have a link.) This fits at least partially with my personal experience: In the quest to get myself well when doctors said it could not be done, I ended up slimming down tremendously in the last year or so. That was not a goal. I did not care about my weight and neither did my doctor since being underweight is far more typical of my condition and is far more immediately life threatening. My main goal was to kill infection and get my body working closer to normal, which included doing a lot of work on my gut health, both in terms of gut chenistry and gut flora.
Really short version: I worked on correcting the extreme acidity my genetic disorder promotes and I consumed a combo of high brine sea salt, coconut oil, glyconutrients and organic yogurt. I did a lot more than that but that is a good place to start, assuming you are hoping to act on the info. Organic yogurt has more varieties of flora than other yogurts and coconut oil does good things for gut flora.
By "extreme acidity" do you mean in your gastrointestinal system or elsewhere? (I've heard people talk about blood-level acidity before.) Was there a test that let you track/monitor acidity as you made changes?
I have a form of cystic fibrosis. It is well established that it makes all the tissues generally more acid but it is not really treated under conventional medicine.
I know of people who tested urine or saliva to monitor ph levels but I did not. I monitored it symptomatically. I could feel when my gut was more acid and it eventually became clear that lung inflammation was directly correlated.
As for blood ph, the body works really hard to keep that within a narrow range. Otherwise, you die. And pretty quickly. The body will strip your bones of calcium to try to keep blood ph stable. If you have an acidity issue, it is best to assume it is systemic rather than localized.
>It makes it sound like we could just cut food production across the board and prevent obesity.
that would actually work.
anyway, let's continue with your automobile parable. I think you're actually spot on with the quality argument. it was necessary to increase safety in passenger vehicles by state intervention (Euro NCAP), and alike the state, in my opinion, needs to chip in if consumers can't control their eating behaviour (just like there always will be irresponsible drivers out there). I'm actually a die hard libertarian, but it is hard to argue that imposing some sort of "fat tax" wouldn't actually reduce obesity (especially since obesity is higher in low income households)
heck - we got the smokers to feel terrible about themselves, I bet we can do the same to fat people... /rant
I don't get your argument. I suppose more cars really lead to more car accidents. Where is the error? You want to have more cars and maintain your old level of car accidents, but it is very unlikely to work out...
"An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one."
It needs to be explained how he determined that this isn't related to _why_ they are obese in the first place, i.e. whether these are purely correlational facts. It would be nice if the New York Times wasn't susceptible to elementary statistical fallacies like this but... well this is nutrition after all.
An interview in the New York Times is not an academic research paper. In this context, it's reasonable for the interviewer to take the mathematician's word for it rather than hammering away at a pedantic detail that may or may not be relevant.
This would be reasonable if people who ought to know better didn't commit this kind of elementary error constantly, particularly in nutrition. It is your attitude, that it's reasonable to publish a scientific article in a major publication without independent thought and fact checking, that I am challenging.
There was a documentary on HBO recently that stated this as well. What's going on is that someone who is obese needs less calories per day to maintain their weight than someone who is not obese. Something to do with metabolism rates slowing down when you are overweight.
Except that's completely backwards to any "calories needed" calculation I've ever heard before.
For instance, I just tried http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/calories-goal.php (after googling it out of the blue) with starting weights of 300 and 200, ten pounds to lose both ways, everything else the same. The calculator suggested the 200 pound guy needed to eat 500 calories a day fewer than the 300 pound guy did.
On consideration, it occurs to me that the original article may mean "extra over your maintenance calories".
In other words, suppose the obese guy needs 3500 calories a day to maintain his weight, and the skinny guy needs 2000. Then I guess it might be true that if the obese guy eats 3510 calories a day, he will gain weight faster than the skinny guy eating 2010. That seems counter-intuitive but at least plausible.
For most people, extra calories will be split between being stored or being burned for energy by muscles. It's easy to fidget those 10 calories away if you aren't lethargic (which overeating for the obese is likely to cause).
The calculator might assume that your goal is to have a non-overweight physique, so that if you tell it your goal weight is 290, it will assume that you're shooting for a pretty lean 290, not an obese 290. Naturally it recommends more calories for someone who is lean at 290 as opposed to someone who is lean at 190.
For example, suppose it assumes you'll have 15% body fat at your goal weight. If you told it your goal weight was 290 as opposed to 190, it would factor in 85 addition pounds of lean body mass and recommend extra calories to sustain that lean body mass. The article says something different: that the same person lean at 190 will gain less weight from an extra 10 calories per day than the same person obese at 290.
While this is true, it is not particularly enlightening. The problem is that earlier a definite assertion was made that obese people burn fewer calories per day when staying at the same weight, and colomon was saying that this is known to be contradicted by certain experimental facts. It is known from experiment that basal metabolic rates are larger as your weight goes up.
It's even consistent with a simple causal model. Obese people have larger bodies, which require more maintenance -- a larger supply of blood vessels and a heart working harder to fill them, more energy expended in getting up and going to the bathroom, et cetera. So it's kind of "no mystery."
Now, it might still be the case that this documentary was correct -- for example, while basal rates might be higher for obese people, perhaps normal-weight people simply have an exercise routine which increases their metabolism in general. Something like that would be useful and would help colomon understand why the result is backwards. Unfortunately, I didn't see the documentary and therefore I don't know this particular reason, but the question is legitimate and is not well-dismissed simply by saying, "oh you know that crazy internet."
So the Hans Benedict formula (which has been in use since 1919) is directly weight related.
The Katch-McArdle and Cunningham try to be more specific and relate to the Lean Body Mass (LBM).
However -- since LBM is reasonably correlated with overall weight -- then we can assume that (all else being equal) the fatter person has a higher BMR.
That's like saying, "Well, the retirement calculator said I could earn 6% on my portfolio, so it can't possibly turn out any other way."
Both sorts of calculators are based on broad averages and simplifying assumptions. It's not like the people at about.com went out and carefully measured intake, metabolism, and weight loss for 10,000 people, making sure to have enough data to get statistical resolution between a 300-pound builder and a 300-pound couch potato.
Thanks for bringing this up, I'd really like some statistical awareness to show up in science reporting.
> It needs to be explained how he determined that this isn't related to _why_ they are obese in the first place, i.e. whether these are purely correlational facts.
I would settle for a simple statement that "An extra 10 calories a day puts more weight onto an obese person than on a thinner one," all else equal or controlling for other factors.
So much of science is based off accepting statistical evidence, that it would be invaluable for science reporting to state, at least in laymans terms, the statistical veracity of results. In this case such a statement should be even easier since we're dealing with a theoretical model of obesity. Is there a coefficient for "current weight" that is independent of other factors?
It needs to be explained how he determined that this isn't related to _why_ they are obese in the first place
I agree that more explanation is needed...the thinner person may be thin because she is more active, and the obese person may be obese because she is more sedentary. An extra 10 calories would seem more likely to put more weight on a sedentary person than an active one.
The reverse claim has just as much explanatory power. That is to say: The active person may be active because she is more thin, and the sedentary person may be sedentary because she is more obese.
It's nice to see that people are developing new models and ways of thinking about weight loss but I wonder how effective this research is going to be. The conclusion of the article is the same old "eat less and eat healthier" which is fantastic advice ... and advice that a great many people don't bother to follow.
As a culture we're eating ourselves to death while worrying that low probability events like terrorist attacks are going to kill us. We're killing us and we're doing it slowly.
> "which is fantastic advice ... and advice that a great many people don't bother to follow"
At least a large part of this is due to lack of education. For all the time we spend on math and science in public schools, we spend none of it on some basic principles like nutrition.
I was rather obese in high school, and the (Canadian) government foot the bill for nutrition courses and consultations with a dietitian (this is a big can 'o worms too: preventative programs like this are way easier in a single-payer system).
I now have the ability to judge what's good for me, and what isn't, as well as effective alternatives to existing choices. That knowledge has been instrumental in my weight loss.
The problem with that "fantastic advice" is that it's rarely coupled with real constructive suggestions. "Eat less and eat healthier, fatass" is unproductive when the person lacks the knowledge to make effective choices, and alternatives to break entrenched habits aren't presented. Sure, a Big Mac is universally unhealthy, but what do you replace it with? A grilled cheese sandwich isn't much better, nor are a lot of "healthier looking" alternatives (anything with mayo slathered in it is dietary suicide, regardless of how much greens you stick in it also). How do you curb hunger when in the process of downsizing your portions? Curling up in a corner isn't super effective. Blood sugar management throughout the day to get you through the rough patches? None of this is trivial knowledge.
Of course, the factor making all of this substantially worse is that the signal to noise ratio in dietary literature is horrific. For every real, researched book on effective diets, you have 3 more fad diets backed up by voodoo and pseudoscience.
Actually, I was taught a lot about basic nutrition in school. Low fat was good, complex carbohydrates were good. 4 food groups. Now apparently that is all wrong?
It's slightly more nuanced than "eat less and eat healthier," because the article is pointing the finger at some general abundance. If you like, look at this researcher's perspective directly. It's not why is this person obese but rather why is everyone getting obese? So he's not going to recommend that the problem is at an individual level, but at an institutional level.
If you wanted to translate this advice for institutions to an advice for individuals, I think it would instead be something like, "pay attention." The hardest costs to see are often the steady everyday costs -- that morning coffee, the groceries, subscriptions, and so forth. The conclusions that "abundance is the problem" and "we're throwing away too much food" seems to suggest that it has sneaked in during the moments when people aren't paying attention; people now don't pay attention to the quantity of food they buy, so more of it gets bought, more gets eaten, more gets thrown away. Look at the things that come automatic, be less worried about single failures and more worried about the general patterns.
The Omnivore's Dilemma (Michael Pollan) goes into more detail on the history of the food boom in the 1970s and its link to obesity. Its a great read for anyone interested. Essentially we got hit with a one-two punch of food price paranoia and the high fructose corn syrup innovation.
I'd also recommend The End of Overeating (David Kessler) which posits that the obesity explosion is due to recent advances in food science re: foods engineered (precise ratios of fat, sugar and salt) to make you want to eat more ("conditioned hypereating").
If you want to lose weight, stop eating packaged food, cut out fast-food and cut back on restaurants/take-out.
Make your own food (like everyone did 40 years ago for most meals) and you'll find yourself controlling your portion intake by default.
I second that. In April I tried an experiment: home-cooked meals at least twice a day, and nothing with a human-boosted glycemic load. E.g., nothing with added sugar, no refined carbs, no fruit juice.
Portion control was much, much easier. I still ate until I felt full; I just felt full a lot sooner, and experienced a big drop in between-meal cravings.
The "calories in/calories out" argument is based on the assumption that the human body is a closed system. This is simply not the case, and touting it as a diet strategy is irresponsible. You might lose weight if you lower your caloric intake by only eating 1 McDonalds cheeseburger a day instead of 2, but in the end you are still eating crap food "product", and you won't be as healthy as you could be by focusing on the _quality_ of your food as opposed to the _quantity_.
There's a few National Institute of Health studies that back the calories in vs calories out argument. Keep your calorie intake below your BMR (basal metabolic rate) + what you burn during the day if you want to lose weight. Very simple. You don't have to "balance saturated and unsatured fats", get ten hours of sleep per day, or whatever other ridiculous microoptimisations people come up with.
Eat 500 calories below your MBR + burn rate and you lose one pound per week.
You can do it while eating garbage food (fast food, heavily processed food products) or you could do it while eating a totally vegan diet. It doesn't matter for weight loss.
Look up "compliance" and how it relates to self-applied medical care for nutrition, acne, exercise, birth control, etc. Vasectomy is more effective than pill is more effective than condom, not because of chemistry or biology or physics, but because of psychology.
That makes sense. I suppose I just think of something different than I should when I hear "weight loss." When someone says "weight loss," I hear "body composition change," which is obviously different than weight loss.
We tell lies to children because the truth is too hard for them to understand at their level of knowledge. (See, for example, models of atoms that have a nucleus and protons and electrons buzzing round it.)
So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c.
But what does that actually mean for a human body? How is a calorie in fat worked out? How is a calorie in sugar worked out? How do we know they're equivalent?
> So, with that in mind, children learn that one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 g of water by 1 degree c.
I find this to be wonderfully ironic, because the nutritional calorie is 1000x larger than the physics calorie. In nutrition, one calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree C. So yes, it's entirely possible that this fellow didn't know what a "calorie" was in the realm of nutrition.
Yep. When you see "calorie" on US food labels, that's actually a big-C Calorie, or food calorie, which is equal to a kilocalorie from regular physics.
If it were regular physics calories, the energy content of food would be nowhere near enough to sustain us. A typical human body at rest will consume around 8 megajoules per day, or about 2 million calories. But that's only about 2 thousand big-C food Calories.
Exaggeration for effect? It's perfectly plausible that a mathematician / physicist would have a weak layman's understanding of energy balance in nutrition.
One important thing in higher education for math and physics is to be able to perform detail technical computations or modeling for phenomenons. In common high school and undergraduate physics class, it only requires students to be able to come up models with intuitions. But in graduate schools, you are trained to examine each step to make sure nothing is left out or based on assumptions that are wrong in your mind.
Therefore a lot of time you are not sure what something is until you re-examine all postulates that you learn when you are young.
An MIT-trained physicist should know the common name for a unit of energy. Sure, he might not remember the conversion from joules to calories, but to have never heard of it?
That's taking a literal reading ("I didn't know what a calorie was"), but perhaps he was referring to a more nuanced understanding ("I didn't understand how energy was used by the body"). That interpretation wasn't clear from the text though -- it seemed an overwrought attempt to portray an "Aw shucks, I didn't know what I was doing!" attitude.
"Calorie" in the context of nutrition has a different meaning than "calorie" in the context of physics. Three orders of magnitude different, to be precise. It's entirely plausible that he had no idea of the special nutritional definition, since you'd never encounter that outside of nutrition, and things like food labels almost always fail to make the difference clear.
sugary drinks. I've never known someone to drop these and not lose weight. It is SO EASY to consume an extra 500 calories a day of liquid sugar. It has close to zero satiety. A 500 calorie surplus is a pound of weight gain a week.
I gave up sugar a few years ago and there was pretty much no effect. I didn't have much sugar before, and there are plenty of other sources of calories.
Yeah likewise. I almost never have a sugary drink (maybe a softdrink can once every 3 months) and it's made zero difference to weight. Stress on the other hand is highly correlated personally with weight (I've lost ~10kg in 3 months every time I've quit a job).
Every time someone says that, the people with a hobby-horse to ride come out and beat on the person for a bit. Especially if they imply that honey (no, sorry, the correct term now is HFCS) isn't the Devil's own temptation sent to corrupt and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Indeed. The reason why I don't like HFCS is because its presence in a product says, "to make our profit margin as large as possible, we used a bunch of artifical ingredients that are slightly cheaper than the real things. that's just how much we care about you, the consumer." Have you ever heard anyone say, "we use HFCS because it tastes better than cane sugar?" Nope. So why use it?
"And it’s something very simple, very obvious,
something that few want to hear: The epidemic was
caused by the overproduction of food in the United
States."
Overproduction? Does a factory intentionally produce more cars than it can sell? Probably not. How about a baker? Does a baker produce more cookies than she can sell? Not for long. Maybe a farmer? No. Not really. That is not an economically sustainable position to take.
If we take the "overproduction" assertion as fact, this begs the question: Why is this happening?
One answer is that consumers have more money to spend and they are choosing to spend some of it buying (and consuming) more food. Fair enough.
Another answer could be that, in certain segments, government geniuses decided they know better than to let free market work. They go in and throw money around to make producers do what they would not under normal circumstances. That triggers over-production of certain goods. Which triggers lower prices. Which triggers higher consumption. And so on.
Another possible answer is a combination of the above. I am, admittedly, against government meddling in our lives. I want them out of nearly everything. Go throw parties for foreign dignitaries and balance our books. Maybe do a few more things. Oh, yes, those borders. Deal with them will ya? Any time these guys dip their ignorant toes into the water of our lives they invariably create a mess that our children and our children's children will have to pay for.
Of course, this philosophy extends to self-responsibility. In my family we might have a soft drink or two at parties here and there. Just like having ice-cream, in moderation it is an occasional treat. Aside from that, water only. What the hell is wrong with people that go into a gas station and order a 64 ounce soft drink? That's like consuming a cup full of sugar while you drive to work.
This is where another angle in this equation comes into play: A third-payer system of health does not penalize bad behavior. Someone who is a complete moron when it comes to how they take care of their bodies and what they put into it should suffer the financial consequence of having to pay a lot more for healthcare. Today, those of us who try to be sensible are paying for the idiots who are not. That is fundamentally wrong.
If you want a healthy and slim population, again, get government the hell out of the way. Yes, it can be that simple. Don't manipulate markets and don't get involved in healthcare. People should buy and pay for their own health insurance, just like they do car insurance. If you drive like a mad-man and get tickets and accidents your insurance goes up or it could be cancelled. The end result is that people modify their behavior to what is a financially sensible state.
The same would happen with healthcare if people were directly responsible for their own insurance and suffered the consequences of their dumb decisions. Smoke and destroyed your lungs? Your insurance should cost you $50K per year. Enjoy. Drink alcohol like an animal and turned your liver into mush? $75K a year. Have fun. The rest of us would have sensible policies which would reward us for being responsible while covering us in the case of catastrophic events or serious illness outside of our control.
To be clear, I don't have a problem contributing to the pot to help out those afflicted with cancer or similar horrible diseases. A portion of everyone's premiums would cover these out-of-the-norm cases. Then there's the case of obesity caused by diseases like Cushings Syndrome (pituitary gland tumor) that's potentially deadly and has nothing to do with over-eating. We need to collectively help those people. Nothing wrong with that.
I do have a problem supporting the moron who has a Double Big-Gulp every day chased by a large pizza and no exercise other than playing XBox for hours every day.
That said, the app for the model looks interesting. I had my basal metabolic rate measured last year before I started a Master's Swimming program. I like numbers and wanted to have some data. It was 1850 kcal/day. According to the Human Weight Simulator I have to consume 2576 kcal/day to maintain my weight. That, for some reason, feels way too high. I haven't counted calories in a long time, but might do it for a few weeks just to get a sense of what this model is doing. I doubt that I am consuming much more than 1700 kcal/day on average. But, I could be wrong.
I'd be nice if they released a paper with this equation the article mentions. Is that published anywhere?
I know. I went back to edit that but it was too late. I meant to say "raises the question" but fell into an all-too-common trap. This is easy to do in English if you are not on your toes because the word "question" has two meanings and "beg", in my opinion, makes it even more confusing. In other languages, for example, Spanish, the equivalent phrase is not ambiguous at all: petición de principio
I actually studied Logic in Spanish while my family was living abroad. Sometimes that does a number with my brain because I actually think about the fallacies in Spanish!
The government encourages overproduction of foodstuffs because it is better to have food and not need it (and consequently sell or store the unused food) then to need food and be without. That is, and always has been, the government's purpose in subsidizing agricultural production (even if that purpose is not shared by any of market participants).
I disagree with the article, and don't believe mathematics has the answer to obesity.
However, if someone would like to start a diet-centered startup with me, I believe I have an insight that invalidates every diet book on the planet.
Every diet book on the planet makes one very false assumption. Before we get to the assumption, let's review something uncontroversial:
- You put on fat by eating more calories than you use; and you lose fat by using more calories than you eat.
In other words, losing fat (beating obesity) would seem to be a combination of "diet and fitness". If you like, you can view every diet book on the planet as a combination of strategies that fall into those two categories (eat less or use more of the calories).
So how can ALL those strategies be wrong?
Let's turn the equation "net fat gain = calories in - calories out" into something more familiar. "net bank account gain = money in - money out."
is it really so simple? Yes. Everyone who weighs more than they want has more money in their bank account (more Calories on their body, ready to burn off) than they want.
Now to get to the big diet books' fallacy, let's turn this around. You're a multimillionaire and want to lose half of your money. What's the easiest way to do it? The easiest way to do it, if you're a millionaire, is to call up your accountant and say, "I would like to donate half of my money to Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, please arrange this."
That's a strategy. You can write it down on a piece of paper and fax it to your accountant with your signature on the bottom, after a few more signatures it's done.
So, what is the difference between THIS strategy and a DIET strategy? Simple: When you wrote that down to fax your your accountant (or booked a hotel room by email, or booked an appointment with a repairperson, contractor, whatever, basically anything like that) then the strategy you wrote down and faxed, in that fax, had the effect that the person it addresses WILL OBEY YOUR COMMAND. They will follow your strategy.
Whereas, if you decide "every morning 5 pushups" and write it down, even if you fax it to yourself that does NOT mean that its recipient (you) will do 5 pushups the next morning.
In other words, every diet book on the planet thinks that you are the boss of the person doing the dieting and exercising, and simply have to micromanage what they do.
But you are NOT the boss of you. Let's recap.
Writing:
"Dear ---, After careful deliberation I have decided that I will immediately be donating 1/2 of all of my wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Please liquidate an appropriate portion of my investments in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (in equal measure) for me to to be able to donate half of my net worth, and then prepare the donation for my signature. Yours truly,"
now it will start to happen, and another signature or two and it's done. (Even if this was considerable work for the accountant!!!)
Now write down: "Starting tomorrow morning, as soon as you wake up please ensure your first action is to do 5 pushups and 5 situps. For seven days do so, then for the next week do 10 of each, the next week 15 of each, then 20, and os on, until you reach 50 of each (after 10 weeks), which you should keep doing indefinitely. Yours truly, yours truly."
Simple strategy, right? Only problem is, if you fax it to yourself, I can almost guarantee you that the recipient of the fax will not do what you want. Even if you sign it. Even if you really, really want you recipient to follow through. They won't.
Every single diet book makes the SINGULAR mistake of thinking that its reader is free to choose a strategy of consumption and of exercise. Not so: the reader can agree with every word. Unlike agreeing with every word of investment advice that a rich person can order an accountant to follow through on, the reader of any diet book has no such power to order that a strategy (of either diet or of exercise) be executed.
- read about Tahiti, decide you want to see it, call your travel agent and have them book a room in Tahiti, and a room will be booked in Tahiti.
- read a fad diet, decide you want to see the results, and... no guarantee you will have a chance to see them.
In sum, if you see what is wrong with the present offering, please email me for collobaring on an interesting alternative.
As someone who has lost a third of my body mass, I disagree with your premise: "Every single diet book makes the SINGULAR mistake of thinking that its reader is free to choose a strategy of consumption and of exercise." I am in complete control of my consumption and exercise. I found a strategy that works for me, and many others have found theirs. It wouldn't surprise me if there are 10 different diet books that work for 10 different people. On top of that there's probably 100 books that don't work for anyone.
Can you summarize your idea in a way that doesn't sound like a late night infomercial? The analogy of spending money and weight loss is flawed. The key to spending the money is not deciding that you want to do it. It's the action of writing the letter, signing the paper or calling your agent. Even when spending a great deal of money, this is an action that requires little willpower over time. You order someone to take care of it and it's no longer on your mind. In contrast, weight loss requires a constant input of will power over a long period of time. That's where people fail.
Sorry, I've waited a day before this reply since I think the mods didn't like that I seemed a bit like an infomercial. see sister post, you may also be interested.
Sorry, I've waited a day before this reply since I think the mods didn't like that I seemed a bit like an infomercial. I don't have one single idea, but rather a whole collection of ideas which can be executed by a single company with rigor.
They're all based on the premise I've outlined. Kind of like there are a whole lot of different alarms (and strategies, like - for me - placing the alarm across the room) that all 'do something' beyond waking you up long enough that you turn the alarm off before falling back asleep for good. There's not one strategy here.
To me, diet and exercise-based books are like strategies for waking up: they think that having a strategy like "When the alarm wakes you up enough that you turn it off, do turn it off, but don't go back to sleep!" Well, yeah, that's the "super-strategy!" All strategies are equivalent to this, just like all strategies are equivalent to "use more calories than you consume". It doesn't help someone who wakes up just long enough to turn a 'naive' alarm off.
If there is some way to reach you I'm happy to share a complete list.
These articles are so amusing. As a regular cyclist eating too much has never been a problem for me. If people really wanted to be thin they would get their ass out on the bike trail with the rest of us ridiculously fit people instead of sitting in front of the television. Since its pretty lonely out there most of the time its clear what choice people are making and I don't feel one bit sorry for you when you have to live with it. Fatty.
This doesn't actually follow logically. I know Mr Chow is implying that there's a lot of data that this interview obviously doesn't present, but there are serious problems with this thesis on the face of it. For one thing, if obesity correlates directly with the availability of food, then the most obese people ought to be those to whom food is most available. But the rich in our society are proportionally not as obese as those who face periodic food shortages; and low-income children are proportionally shown to be at much higher risk of suffering from obesity. [1]
Not only that, but the statement that food production has simply gone up and therefore food prices have simply gone down is incredibly... simplistic. There have been arguments for years [2] about what food prices have gone down or up and how that may or may not have affected obesity.
I want to believe that there's data behind this fellow's claims, but I can't help but feel as though, no matter what the data is, summarizing it in the way he does is deceptive.
[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=303&issu...
[2] For example, http://www.good.is/post/the-inconvenient-truth-about-cheap-f...