The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Diet Is an IQ Test: Part 23
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

calorie balance

At a time when some people may be wishing to set a New Year’s resolution, after some festive eating and drinking, it is apposite to look at a recent very striking headline:

‘I beat type 2 diabetes with 200-calorie drinks’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42154666

It describes what is said to be a very promising treatment for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The breakthrough comes from “200 calories drinks” suggesting that if you have lots of these you can cure an illness. This seems a cheerful suggestion, and a welcome achievement of Science. The article itself, read carefully, has only two mentions of the word “fat”. Here they are:

Body fat building up around the pancreas causes stress to the beta cells in the organ that controls blood sugar levels. They stop producing enough of the hormone insulin, and that causes blood sugar levels to rise out of control. Dieting loses the fat, and then the pancreas works properly again.

This suggests to readers that it is fat round the pancreas which causes the problem, rather than being fat everywhere. In fact, although one can always quibble with epidemiological studies, being fat causes a variety of problems, including in the knees: yet another medical mystery. More widely, arthritis symptoms are worse among fat people.

What is this wonder cure based on?

Complan.

Complan is what we gave decades ago to women with anorexia nervosa when they came into the York Clinic, Guy’s Hospital, at death’s door when the psychotherapists treating them had fnally realised that inpatient treatment was required. A commercial product, Complan is a vitamin drink with carbohydrates and fat and the full range of nutrients required for a balanced diet. We used a behaviour therapy routine which rewarded patients for weight gain. The total daily calorific intake was 2000-3000 calories, resulting in a mean weight gain of 12.39 kilos over 53 days, a daily gain of 234 grams, or 1.64 kilos (3.6 pounds) a week. That is in fact a reasonable estimate of the weight gains made by a totally sedentary person who eats a 3000 calorie diet. For a higher amount of calories, adjust upwards. Thermodynamics.

Here is the reference to the anorexia paper.

S.Bhanji and J.Thompson. Operant conditioning in the treatment of anorexia nervosa. British Journal of Psychiatry (1974),124,579,166 174.

Enough of that. Here is The Lancet summary of the latest paper on the “treatment” of diabetes 2:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr

The account does not mention fat at all. They say:

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disorder that requires lifelong treatment. We aimed to assess whether intensive weight management within routine primary care would achieve remission of type 2 diabetes.

This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?

Later in the paper there are a few clues about weight loss after an 850 calorie per day diet. Patients had BMIs of 27 to 45 Kgs per m2 which is from “over-weight” to “morbid obesity”. Patients lost 15 Kg or more.

Patients had been put on Complan, or its equivalent, to break them from the bad habits of their habitual fattening diet. This is good news, and I am in favour of it. What irritates me is the evasion contained in this story, in that it does not mention that the “illness” of type 2 diabetes is merely a consequence of eating too much and becoming fat. What should the headline have been?

Trial shows that fat people who eat less become slimmer and healthier.

I hope this wonder treatment receives lots of publicity. If you wish to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings just don’t mention fatness. In extremis, you may talk about body fat around vital organs, but keep it brief, and generally evasive.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/diet-is-iq-test/

I see little need to update the broad conclusion: if you want to lose weight you should eat less.

However, you do not need to make a New Year’s Resolution about this. Your body is your own temple.

Happy New Year.

Disclosure: I have a wonder diet I have designed and followed since 12th March 2015. Oddly enough, it is simply a way of eating less. It is fully written up, and I am willing to disclose it at the 3 year anniversary next March, or sooner in the case of very generous donations. For all I know, it may boost your IQ.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Diet, IQ 
Hide 368 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “This leads one to ask: How does one catch this illness? Is there some vaccination against this “chronic disorder”? By lifelong, does it really mean that it lasts for ever?”

    No there is no ‘vaccination’. It only requires ‘lifelong’ intervention if you’re following the Big Pharma plan. Intermittent fasting combined with low carb diets are the best ‘cure’ for TIIDM.

    https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-36?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

    http://obesity.imedpub.com/benefits-of-ketogenic-diet-for-management-of-type-two-diabetes-a-review.php?aid=14629

    http://www.rcsi.ie/files/facultyofsportsexercise/20170406095210_Low%20carbohydrate%20diets%20Tim%20Noa.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329646/

    That’s better than any Big Pharma ‘vaccination’.

    850 kcal per day diet? Don’t make me laugh. That’s not sustainable. At all.

    “If you want to loss weight you should eat less”

    Eat less/move more does not work.

    The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Diet is not ‘an IQ test.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. dearieme says:

    And to think that I contemplated telling you how much we’d drunk over Xmas, and asking for your opinion on its likely consequences. Eating was not a problem because everyone knows that goose doesn’t count, not whether roast (hot), roast (cold), confit, risotto, crackling, nor broth.

    Goose for the win! (That’s an Americanism I don’t understand, but I like the sound of it.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. …that it does not mention that the “illness” of type 2 diabetes is merely a consequence of eating too much and becoming fat.

    Rather than “merely”, you need something like “most often” or “very often”, there are other causes, as I imagine you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @RaceRealist88

    Eating less works just fine. Everybody I know who has lost weight has done so by eating less. Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.

    Exercising more, I’ve found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Fat people are often hungrier and crave more fattening food. It’s well known (also personal experience) that eating lots of sugary foods makes you crave them more. Probably people with a lower impulse control are at a disadvantage here – as elsewhere – but it doesn’t mean that it’s a simple problem, as attested to by the high number of smart and fat people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @blah blah blah blah

    Eating less works, but unless you can find a way to decrease your hunger, it’s just not sustainable. You cannot stay on semi-starvation all your life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @reiner Tor

    Very true. There’s a learning curve to figuring out what foods work for you. As you wrote above, sugar is generally a bad idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @blah blah blah blah

    Eat less [much less; never at dawn];

    Stabilized schedule for great meals and snacks;

    Lower- impact physical exercises [at least to me/ program for insufferably and proudy lazy].

    From ~79-80 kg to 68-69 kg in some months.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Coming from James Thompson, who has written on the genetic and possible environmental sources of intelligence, I was expecting something that discussed obesity and diabetes in that light. I mean, seriously, there are no genetic traits that relate to these conditions? Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?

    Come on. People are fat just because they are dumb and don’t associate obesity with food and drink? They are completey independent ghost-in-the-machine agents who can just decide to be thin and stop overeating without regard to their genome?

    I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    RaceRealist88 is right in his comments.
    James Thompson is a brilliant guy, but knows nothing about this subject.
    Americans are not lazy or naturally gluttonous – they eat the wrong food and are still hungry all the time. The problem is American food.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @blah blah blah blah

    RaceRealist88, you are mostly right. But eating differently isn’t a trick. It nourishes your body and that makes it easy to naturally eat less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    reiner Tor is mostly correct. But it’s not just that sugary food makes one hungry, or that people have poor impulse control. Eating the wrong food makes one undernourished, contributing to the cravings and the impulses to eat.
    Bad food changes the gut flora, and the gut, governed by its flora, is a second brain that produces impulses and cravings. It’s complicated.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    reiner Tro, correct again.
    You must eat right in order to decrease your hunger. And satiate your healthy hunger with the right foods.
    http://www.perfecthealthdiet.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen Marle II

    Europeans are no more dedicated to health than Americans, and no harder working or harder playing than Americans. And they love food and drink just as much as Americans do. Yet they weigh less. The difference is the food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
    , @Adrian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. anon • Disclaimer says:

    This is a huge and difficult subject. But to get you started -
    Avoid polyunsaturated vegetable oils
    Cook at home instead of eating out.Avoid fast foods.
    Use good saturated fats – butter, ghee, olive oil, beef fat, fish oils (salmon, sardines, herring, etc.), coconut oil, palm kernel oil
    Practice intermittent fasting – eat meals during an 8 hour period each day and don’t eat the rest of the time until the next day’s 8 hour period.
    Eat carbs only moderately – potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice. Avoid wheat and all grains except for white rice. You’re still damaged by the other grains, even if you don’t have a celiac condition or gluten sensitivity. The antinutrients in grain are bad for everyone, symptomatic or not.
    Avoid legumes and beans.
    Eat good meats, fish, seafood, vegetables and some fruits.
    Take (only some needed ones) supplements to make sure you get all the nutrients you need.

    Tired of me already, right? The folks who tell you it’s simple are wrong, but they are easy to follow and they give you simple, easily remembered rules.
    And following them is why you’re fat and diabetic or headed in that direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    , @Anonymous
    , @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @blah blah blah blah

    “Intermittent fasting and low carb are ways to trick yourself into eating less.”

    That’s not the only reason. You get great benefits from it, it curbs your hunger. They keep you sated compared to high carb diets, which is the diet pushed by the main dieticians associations in both America and the UK. Big Food is in their pockets so they recommend diets with 65 performance of it coming from carbs. Wonder why there’s an obesity and diabetes epidemic? There’s your answer.

    “Exercising more, I’ve found, does not work so well since it tends to make me hungrier. YMMV…”

    So you agree that the “eat less move more” model doesn’t work? What you mentioned above won’t happen with high carb diets. Take two diets both with the same kcal. But one is 65 percent fat and the other is 65 percent carbs. What would happen to the dieters in one year? Two years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Stephen Marle II

    “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?”

    Of course it does, they’re obesogenic environments. That’s when the rise in obesity began. It has nothing to do with “IQ genes” nor does it have anything to do with genetic change. This is due to the obesogenic environment which is also another reason why we have tons of diseases that our hunter gatherer ancestors didn’t have.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    So was it a genetic change that occurred 50 years ago that then caused the uptick in obesity and its related diseases or was it the changing food environment brought on by companies like Kelloggs marketing breakfast as a ‘must have’?

    “or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix.”

    Whatever that means.

    “I have no doubt that I.Q., or a bundle of the myriad genes underlying I.Q., is one factor in the mix. But it’s got to be more complicated than that. Hint: Google “polygenic obesity.””

    I doubt that “IQ genes” (whatever that is) exist so your proposal of them being polygenic with ‘obesity genes’ doesn’t make sense.

    Obesity is a multifaceted disease, which comes down mostly to our obesogenic environments. We have Paleolithic genomes in novel, obesogenic environments. That’s why we have these problems and we will begin to change them if the obesogenic environment changes.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Marle II
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @RaceRealist88

    @RaceRealist88

    Just as life and diet are IQ tests, so is reading comprehension of blog comments … and you failed. My style is a little elliptical, but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree.

    For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….”

    The obesity epidemic is genetic triggered by environment, in other words, both. Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment. Two people, one with a latent tendancy to overeat when free of external social pressures of regular family meals and lack of exposure to the number of fast foot restaurants and packaged foods that we have, will both stay thin. Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.

    This is why one-third of the population was overweight or obese in 1980 and two-thirds are today. One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.

    And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general. Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**

    So to ”IQ genes” become something as ”Kg genes” it’s needed a ”brain balance”**

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Stealth says:
    @RaceRealist88

    High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all. The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people. Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.

    The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a “low-fat” group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.

    You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What’s also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?

    FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don’t tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @nsa
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Stephen Marle II

    “diet are IQ tests”

    It’s not.

    “but if you concentrate and read my comment again, I think you can figure it out. And we don’t really disagree.”

    I understood your comment. I know we don’t really disagree (only on small minutae). Don’t disrespect me please. Thank you.

    “For instance, “Current society has no obesogenic environmental factors that it didn’t have half a century ago?” has a question mark after it, which in this context means, “Surely you’re not saying that …?” It doesn’t mean “What I believe is that ….””

    Noted. I explained it and provided links with more citations for the claim.

    “Latent genetic tendancies started to have an effect when confronted with a different environment.”

    Right. But without the environment, where’s the obesity? Where’s the disease of civilization? It’s almost non-existent. So it’s the environment that directly drives this. Change the obesogenic environment, change obesity rates.

    “Add the change of a disintegrating family eating structure and lots more food around, and the person with the latent weakness will get fat, but not the person without it.”

    Correct. And there are avenues that the person with the ‘latent weakness’ can take that will help them.

    “One third of the population has always had an active genetic tendancy to be fat, in modern times at least, and one third is programmed to be thin. The central third could remain thin until the environment became obesogenic and enabled their latent genetic weaknesses.”

    ‘Programmed’? So nature > nurture, you’re saying?

    “And I think that there are indeed “IQ genes” that affect obesity. Of course, there are no IQ genes per se, but swimming around in the polygenic pool of genes that affect congitive abilities are genes that also cause Tay-Sachs, and obesity, and health in general.”

    Where? So these ‘IQ genes that affect obesity’ would give low IQ and higher susceptibility to both obesity and poverty, correct? What do you base this off of, if that is indeed the view you hold? Assumptions? Have you ever worked with obese people in regard to diet and exercise?

    “Whether the effect is “Smart people know not to overeat because they’re smart and they logicked it out, calories in, etc.,” or “Smart people tend to have a mix of genes that also have certain affects on appetite and metabolism” is another question.”

    Individual variation in metabolism is 5 to 10 percent. That doesn’t explain individual obesity rates. Hormones affect appetite, ghrelin is the main driver and when on an extended diet with low kcal, your body releases more of the hormone to make you eat more while blunting the hormones that sate you. This holds for everyone.

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Stealth

    “High protein, high fat diets are not healthy at all.”

    I didn’t advocate for them. I’m aware of the dangers of high protein intake.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    “The subject has been studied extensively, and a low fat diet centered around carbohydrates really is the best for people.”

    All people?

    “Vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists are some of the longest lived people in the world. The traditional Okinawan diet revolved around brown rice and sweet potatoes.”

    I discussed some of these papers here, I’ll go in depth on all of these ‘blue laws’ soon.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/rebutting-heartiste-on-the-twinkie-diet/#comment-2692

    “The studies purported to show that fat (in excess) and meat are either healthy or have no negative impact are usually set up in advance to discover just that. For example, a “low-fat” group in a study might still eat a terribly unhealthy amount of fat, and voila, the study just proved that a low fat diet has no health benefits.”

    Citations?

    “You say that eating 850 calories per day is unsustainable, but I doubt the writer is suggesting that people pursue such a lifestyle. What’s also unsustainable is ketosis. Are you suggesting that people adopt a ketogenic diet for life?”

    How is LCHF or VLCKD less sustainable than 850 kcal per day, or even 65 percent energy from CHO as the pariah AHA recommends to dieters? I’m suggesting that people eat as little sugar and processed carbohydrates as possible and adopt a diet of whole, healthy foods with an emphasis on animal fat and protein, low on carbs.

    “FYI, my own diet is very unhealthy, but I don’t tell myself the lie that beef, pork and butter are health foods.”

    Well read this book then.

    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Santoculto

    “IQ points is equivalent to height Kg**

    Not at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. res says:
    @anon

    The difference is the food.

    I think that is mostly true between Europeans and Americans (or between Americans in 1917 and 2017) as you said. But within Americans in 2017 I think genetics plays a large role. Genetics is important in obesity both for first order reasons (how the body responds to a given food intake) and for many more reasons (e.g. willpower, desire for/response to exercise).

    Given all the IQ related discussion we have here about within and between population differences and the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors I think obesity and other food/gene related issues make an interesting and timely tie in. One interesting aspect of that connection is that intelligence and obesity seem to have somewhat similar heritability:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2570383/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20816022

    The first paper (title Human Obesity: A Heritable Neurobehavioral Disorder That Is Highly Sensitive to Environmental Conditions) has some discussion of the possibility that heritability is changing over time.

    And yes, finding a diet that works for oneself is something of an IQ test (and a willpower test as well). I actually think Steve Sailer gave some of the best nutritional advice I have ever seen. Look at what diets work for others in your family (i.e. genetically close). I think that also applies at a larger population level (i.e. ethnicity, especially people who seem otherwise phenotypically similar).

    Happy New Year to all!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious.

    Calories in/out is certainly not everything, but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition? There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.

    Also read a nutrionist’s take on the study Dr. Thompson wrote about in this article.

    https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/reversing-diabetes-type-2/%E2%80%9D

    That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @RaceRealist88

    Why not*

    ”weight”, oops…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Obesity = caloric hedonism, ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @res

    “but how true do you think it is given a constant diet composition?”

    Because the out part of the equation is affected by other variables not related to the in part of the equation (some partially are).

    Take two people, one eats 65 percent carbohydrates, 20 percent fat and 15 percent protein. Then take another person who eats that combination except switch fat for carbs. They both eat at a deficit for one year. Who will show better compliance? Who will have a better blood profile?

    “There is a lot to be said for portion size control. The challenge is feeling satiated and you gave some good advice there.”

    Feeling sated is hard, especially in an obesogenic environment where food is constantly advertised to you and is always around you. Doesn’t hurt that those foods are cheaper too. But if you know how to feel sated then you’re good to go.

    People who are proponents of the calories in calories out model like to point to Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition who ate twinkies and other high carb foods as 66 percent of his diet and lost weight, good blood profile.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    But he was paid by Coca-Cola. Shocker.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/why-coca-cola-loves-the-calories-model/

    The calories in calories out model is wrong and harms too many people. It assumes that all food ingested, no matter its source, is the same on the body and you’ll lose the same amount of weight on one diet. This doesn’t take into account the genome, nor does it take into account how the microbiome expresses different genes based on the foods you eat, nor does it take into account how your microbiome composition can be changed by the foods you eat, all of which affect health and how you can lose weight.

    “That is a good and well referenced counterpoint. I especially appreciated the references to other studies showing remission in T2DM. Thanks.”

    Zoe Harcombe has great stuff. You should also check out Tim Noakes and his new book The Lore of Nutrition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I’m going to suggest that a healthy life style is a function of both IQ and OCEAN but perhaps more heavily weighted towards the latter. A friend and I both have IQs at least three or four SDs above the mean. He eats a healthy diet, exercises regularly, and at age seventy weighs what he did in grad school and suffers no serious health problems. I eat what I want – a lot of it junk food – exercise seldom, and am very much overweight that causes some concerning health issues. I lack the C to do anything about this although I know I ought to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @res

    “e.g. willpower”

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/you-cant-willpower-your-way-to-lasting-weight-loss/488801/

    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Eating-Lab-Science-Willpower/dp/0062329235

    From the first paper:

    In our opinion, there are really only two basic explanations (and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) for how these people have avoided the “toxic” effects of environment. The one that intuitively appeals to the mass media (and to many lean people) is that this group is largely made up of individuals who have made conscious choices about diet and exercise and have actively fought off the “toxic environment.” An alternative explanation, much less frequently cited in public debate, is that this group of subjects are somehow biologically different and achieve their leanness largely through unconscious mechanisms.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    I don’t think it’s ‘unconscious mechanisms’ per se, because weight can and does fluctuate throughout the lifespan. I can make the conscious choice to eat a good diet (which I do) or to eat a bad, high carb, high fat diet. I choose to eat a good diet because I know about nutrition and am educated in it. People only need to know the alternatives and not listen to ‘Big Food’ et al.

    That’s also an old review (10 years old) and it’s been found that the FTO gene doesn’t have that large of an effect.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4707

    Thus, it is at least plausible that those who may be biologically and genetically predisposed to obesity …

    Bad phrasing. Nature/nurture is irrelevant.

    I like that it brings up Speakman’s work though, because he hypothesizes about ‘drify genes’, not ‘thrifty genes’. Though looking at some peoples like the Pima, this very may well be the case.

    For medical, social, and economic reasons, most obese people are highly motivated to lose weight but find it difficult to lose weight and, if they succeed, even more difficult to maintain weight loss

    Because of horrible advice.

    The biology behind it is becoming clear, as he says, but it’s very preventable with the right interventions. Behaviors are neither ‘genetic’ nor ‘environmental’.

    Second paper:

    The proportion of variation in dietary intake explained by variation in genes differed between the dietary traits under study but for the majority of dietary variables the genetic influence was 20-50%.

    Robyn Toomath writes the same in her book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-Diets-Exercise-Work_and/dp/1421422492

    It has good stuff, I especially like the focus on the genetics of obesity and exercise. Though she gets a bit wrong.

    Also look up the HERITAGE study which shows wildly different variation in response to diet and exercise, with some people showing no response at all (though that doesn’t mean that everyone shouldn’t exercise).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    You can’t ‘willpower’ your way to lasting weight loss.

    My experience is you can ‘willpower’ your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don’t underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.

    I agree that they’re not mutually exclusive, but I think that it’s something along these lines. You can also change behaviors. What do you think of cognitive behavior therapy?

    Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I’ve never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. I read somewhere extroverted and lower neurotic people are more prone to exercise more and eat healthily.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. 22pp22 says:

    I am overweight because I have too little self control around cheese and chocolate.

    However, in Costa Rica I ate the same unhealthy diet I have always eaten and became very lean and thin. (2okg loss) Costa Ricans, by the way, are often severely obese.

    I returned to New Zealand and slowly regained all the weight. I then moved to Cyprus for two years and put on an extra kilo despite eating a Mediterranean diet and taking lots of exercise. The Troodos Mountains are close to paradise and the perfect place to go hiking.

    I don’t get it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @RaceRealist88

    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.
    The other, more detailed account, had interesting points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    , @RaceRealist88
    , @cthulhu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. nsa says:
    @Stealth

    Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals. The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease). Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. res says:
    @James Thompson

    This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

    This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.

    Bodies are heat machines, but all foods and metabolic pathways are not created equal. Some instances where the apparent external thermodynamic reality is either incomplete or less important:
    - Not all food is digested. See “availability” at link above. For example, fiber contains calories but they are not digestible.
    - Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).
    - Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )
    - Another example of efficiency is the conversion of fat/protein/carbohydrates into glucose (or fat, muscle, etc.).
    - Still another example of efficiency is converting between forms of F/P/C. For example, simple vs. complex carbohydrates or conversion between amino acids (e.g. phenylalanine to tyrosine) or Omega 3/6 fats metabolic pathways.
    - Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).
    - It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.

    RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic. Which I think is what you are reacting to?

    I have gotten kind of tired of the hyperbole, but the underlying good points make his comments worth reading IMHO. The hyperbole does affect my willingness to engage though.

    TLDR: “Calories out” is a surprisingly complicated subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @res

    “My experience is you can ‘willpower’ your way to changing diet long enough to ingrain new habits. YMMV. Also don’t underestimate the importance of willpower in combating those toxic environments. It is hard to be the odd person.”

    “Willpower” is a finite resource, so if you’re using it to stay away from certain foods, you’re still using it in your everyday life so eventually one will give in. Look into Traci Mann’s work.

    https://www.thecut.com/2015/05/willpower-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-weight.html

    I agree that it’s hard on combatting certain environments, but that falls on society as a whole (which I think needs a complete overhaul but that’s another story).

    “Most of my complaints in this debate center around people regarding different explanations as being mutually exclusive. CBT seems like a great idea to me, but for some reason I’ve never had much success doing it formally. I do think incorporating aspects of it in everyday life is useful.”

    In my experience it works well for people. Though longterm studies show that the effect goes away after one stops CBT. And you can make ‘conscious’ choices to diet and exercise, contra JayMan, but most people don’t know what to do and they need to be educated on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @James Thompson

    I should have clarified. The first law only states that if one eats more then they burn then they gain weight. It doesn’t tell us anything about causation, it tells us about how, not why.

    In all actuality, it’s just reversing the cause of obesity. People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more. Invoking the first law of thermodynamics in discussions about obesity and its causes are meaningless, and eventually becomes tautological.

    A classic example from Gary Taubes is this: imagine a crowded room. People leaving and entering the room cause differences in the number of people in the room. Sure. But it doesn’t tell you WHY people are entering and leaving the room. Maybe there’s a fire, a performer is around, etc but stating that ‘the room gained more people because more people walked in doesn’t say anything about causation. So people eat more, they become obese. OK, but what does it tell us about preventing it? Eating less and moving more doesn’t work as I’ve shown, so the underplay must be hormonal.

    Similarly, when someone tells me so-and-so is obese because he eats more than he expends, I say, “of course he does…you’re just re-stating the First Law.” What I want to know is, WHY did he eat more calories than he burned? If we don’t understand this point, how can we treat this condition?

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/revisit-the-causality-of-obesity

    Regarding the second law, stating that a calorie is a calorie violates it:

    “The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.”

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    It’s fallacious. So both of people’s ‘thermodynamic weapons’, if you will, have detailed physiological arguments against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @res

    “This is a bit cute and vulgar for my taste, but has a surprising amount of good information about the calories in/out (CICO) argument: http://physiqonomics.com/calories/”

    This is a pretty good article but it took a turn for the worse at the end there. Mark Haub? See the article I cited in my previous comment about him.

    Though if people in the CICO camp want to use one person as an example then I can too. Look at Sam Feltam who ate over 5000 kcal per day on a low carb high fat diet and gained hardly any weight.

    Sam Feltham ate +5,000 kcal per day for 21 days and only gained 1.3 kg when he should have gained 7.3 kg based on the amount of kcal he ate.

    http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

    This is even seen in large scale studies. People eating the same diet for one month all gain/lose differing amounts of weight. If the CICO paradigm held true, then everyone should have gained exactly 27 pounds at the end of this study, however there was wide variation in weight gain. Quoting Dr. Sandra Aamodt’s 2016 book Why Diets Make Us Fat

    Like nearsightedness, environmental influences on weight also mostly affect the genetically vulnerable, although we understand the details of the process in only rare cases. Fitness gains on a standardized exercise program vary from one person to another largely because of differences in their genes. When identical twins, men in their early twenties, were fed an extra thousand calories per day for about three months, each pair showed similar weight gains . In contrast, the gain varied across twin pairs, ranging from nine to twenty-nine pounds, even though the caloric imbalance was the same for everyone. An individual’s genes also influence weight loss. When another group of identical twins burned a thousand more calories per day through exercise while maintaining a stable food intake in an in-patient facility, their losses ranged from two to eighteen pounds and were even more similar within twin pairs than weight gain. (Aamodt, 2016 pg. 138)

    That destroys the CICO paradigm right there. Here is the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9164270

    “This argument actually reminds me of the IQ heritability argument. It is a classic false dichotomy with the (IMHO) first order effects of thermodynamics and genetic inheritance being incorrectly dichotomized to all or none. The existence of second order effects does not make the first order effects irrelevant.”

    True. It’s like the nature/nurture false dichotomy as well (which also comes into play in this discussion).

    “- Not all metabolic pathways are the same. Efficiency and the number of conversions matter. RR’s final link goes into some detail concerning fat storage as a third compartment (it is worth noting that the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems, which the body is, 2,3,4 or however many compartments).”

    Correct. That shows why invoking the second law is fallacious. Human bodies, furthermore, are not bomb calorimeters. So putting in 200 kcal doesn’t mean that the out will be 200 kcal as well, since the thermic effects of food (TEF) comes into play along with other factors that affect the out part of the equation. The ‘in’ can be held constant (attempted to, at least) while the out is at the mercy of human physiology and the brain.

    “- Perhaps the best example of efficiency is aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism for converting glucose to ATP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration (~18x difference in efficiency! http://www.uwyo.edu/bio1000skh/lecture15.htm )”

    Yes. This is best shown in black vs white muscle fibers and how they show elite differences in sprinting (West Africans). Blacks have more type II fibers on average so they will convert more glucose into ATP, they will also produce ATP faster as well as regenerate it. ATP powers all cellular functioning. (I’d personally put ATP high up in the chain of causality in biology.)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/malaria-the-sickle-cell-trait-and-fast-twitch-muscle-fibers/

    “- Then there is the issue of burning fat vs. carbohydrate as metabolic fuel: https://ultrarunning.com/features/metabolic-efficiency-becoming-a-better-butter-burner/ These are different metabolic pathways and relative use may vary because of a number of factors (e.g. intensity, genetics, training).”

    Differences in ‘exercise’ would produce the effect. Whether or not you do anaerobic or aerobic exercise dictates which pathways your body uses energy from.

    “- It does not affect thermodynamics, but satiety and tendency to induce cravings (e.g. by taste, glucose spiking/crashing, or addiction type responses) are IMHO key to weight loss in the real world.”

    Which is why low carb high fat diets are best. They’re best for satiety and insulin sensitivity.

    “RaceRealist88 is making some good points against CICO (the false dichotomy version of CICO where it is the only thing that matters), but his statements “And calories in/out? Don’t make me laugh. A calorie is not a calorie and saying so is fallacious. ” and “The First Law of Thermodynamics are irrelevant to human physiology.” are IMHO just him being hyperbolic.”

    See my reply to Dr. Thompson. I clarified my position. First Law is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about causation; invoking the Second Law is fallacious due to, as you discussed in your comment, how food is processed through different metabolic pathways among other things. That paper by Feinman and Fine is really good.

    Yes, the out part of the equation is extremely complicated, more complicated then CICO purists would allow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. “The total daily calorific intake was 2000-3000 calories, resulting in a mean weight gain of 12.39 kilos over 53 days, a daily gain of 234 grams, or 1.64 kilos (3.6 pounds) a week. That is in fact a reasonable estimate of the weight gains made by a totally sedentary person who eats a 3000 calorie diet.”

    Dr. Thompson, in your 1974 paper you say that weight gain over the weeks was .9 to 3.3 kg. I’m not able to access the paper. Is it possible for you to provide the individual weight gain and kcal consumed? Though the circumstances are different, I’d like to compare to another overeating study done on Vermont prisoners:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/77a2/4c741388e67192aac52d8b442deabad865f9.pdf

    So, with a combination of scientific curiosity and loose ethical control (hello – informed consent?), some people were made to eat upwards of 10,000 calories/day. 10,000 calories per day! One man only gained 10 pounds with all that. However, most people did gain upwards of 20% of body weight. What happened to their energy expenditure? Metabolism, or Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) increased by 50%.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-astonishing-overeating-paradox-calories-part-x/

    Is data like that provided in your paper?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @nsa

    “Stealth is correct. A high carb plant based diet mixed with walking a couple miles a day is the best way to lose weight, be free of degenerative diseases, and live to a ripe old age. Excluded are: refined sugars, all fats, all dairy, all meat from dead murdered animals..”

    Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes. “all meat from dead murdered animals”, nice try vegan. Parts of the SAD diet lead to obesity, and I agree about cutting sugar but not animal meat/fat. There is nothing wrong with it and it doesn’t raise all cause mortality.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475232/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26268692/

    The Lancet article, while an observational study, lends strong credence to the claim that high fat is not harmful (while the other citations I have provided buttress the point).

    “The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes (which is entirely a lifestyle disease).”

    Low carb high fat diets are best for type II diabetics.

    “Most everything in a modern grocery store is bad for you. If it comes out of a can, a box, cellophane rapped packet, bag……..it’s likely filled with chemicals and preservatives and harmful to the body you are trapped in. You want your coronaries to resemble sludge filled sink traps and your joints falling apart at age 50, than partake of the modern american diet.”

    Are you aware that dietary fat doesn’t cause arterial clogging, but carbohydrates do, increasing saturated fatty acid levels in the blood. Carbs are the culprit, not sat fat itself.

    https://www.livescience.com/48969-heart-disease-diabetes-risks-carbohydrate-saturated-fat.html

    The modern American diet (SAD; standard American Diet) is horrible, but that doesn’t mean that all aspects of it are (meat and animal fat) while a majority is bad (constantly eating, high carb, high fat, high sugar, hyperpalatable foods).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    People assume that eating more leads to obesity, but what if causality is reversed? Obesity leads to one eating more.

    To my mind that is another false dichotomy. I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.

    On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @JL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @res

    “To my mind that is another false dichotomy.”

    Not really because if one gets bigger then they must consume more energy to maintain their weight,

    “I think what makes obesity such a troublesome issue is that both directions of causality are present. In other words, we have a vicious cycle. The question then becomes how to convert that into the opposing virtuous cycle.”

    The vicious cycle is insulin spikes spiking blood glucose which then lead to a vicious cycle of insulin causing insulin resistance, because the body is insulin resistant which then causes the body to produce more insulin due to its extreme resistance. That’s the vicious cycle.

    “On another note, since we are talking about thermodynamics, how about our increasingly climate controlled environments as a contributing factor to obesity? I primarily mean the heating side–think of all those calories not required to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees.”

    Sounds intriguing. One paper I just came across:

    As ambient temperature decreases, energy expenditure (and energy intake) must increase to maintain thermal homeostasis.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975627/

    Though that’s obvious. And the body’s physiology is homeodynamic, not homeostatic.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12805697

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901899

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Dr. Krieger
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. JL says:
    @nsa

    The Pritikin diet is the best example, and is now used widely as a cure for Type Two diabetes

    Do you have any citations to back up this claim?

    From Wiki:

    “The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling too hungry.”

    Sign me up!

    meat from dead murdered animals.

    Surely eating meat from dead murdered animals is more humane than eating them while they’re still alive! In all seriousness, the moral vegan argument only works if you carry it to its extreme and don’t procreate yourself, per David Benatar.

    As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I’ve found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. JL says:
    @res

    Evolutionary discordance is omnipresent; not just climate control, but things like artificial lighting and toilet seats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Most of this thread has focused on whether IQ can control obesity. Let us consider anorexia. I have had two female relatives who have been through this. Both were clearly of well above average intelligence. They could not rally the will power to eat (or perhaps overcome the will power not to eat) despite knowing intellectually that they were severely underweight. One was never treated and never really recovered. The other had the best that one of the UK’s top treatment centres could throw at her. She moved on. So treatment works. Anorexics often have very good academic track records implying high IQ, so we can conclude that high IQ fails as protection against anorexia, perhaps even predisposes. Should we expect more from IQ for the obese or potentially obese?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Philip Owen

    Diseases like that are more complicated than ‘IQ’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @JL

    “As for the eat less, move more theory of weight control, I’ve found that its proponents have never been overweight themselves, or directly responsible for helping treat the overweight/metabolically deranged.”

    This. It’s a cop-out, people talk about this because they hear things repeatedly said while having no experience working with people, seeing how hard it is for people to lose weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Philip Owen

    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Philip Owen

    I have been discussing a general link between obesity and low intelligence. Anorexia is a rare condition, with a likely genetic component, and I doubt that intelligence is protective in those cases, not that I have data on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The brain and peripheral nervous system is just like any other biological system which we no have total control over it. It’s just like our stomach or our intestine. They react based on the type of food we give to them, in the case of brain, ”meme-food”. It’s about quality-control as well intensity//quantity of ideas/thoughts and subsequent guidelines as well our capacity to patronize them.

    So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @res

    Alas a diet that works for me is low-carb, high-veg and high-protein (mostly fish).

    Trouble is I love a doorstep slice of malted granary bread. Or three. Preferably slathered in butter.

    Diabetes does bad things to the veins in your legs, and if you’re elderly you can end up with open sores that are difficult to heal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Philip Owen

    My wife suffered from the same issue and also scored in the above-120 percentile in school-administered IQ-tests. I suspect its pretty much a dysmorphic issue related to perception, and has little to do with intellectual awareness. Indeed, she mostly used her intelligence to better find ways that essentially hurt herself.

    She has also recovered after therapy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @James Thompson

    From what I’ve read on anorexia and IQ, they have an average 110 IQ. I’ll get references later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Philip Owen

    I’d also like to add that this is more proof thst cognitive behavioral therapy works. IQ, in my opinion, is a non-factor here. But in regard to obesity, people need better education and our shitty guidelines need to go into the trash to reverse the obesity epidemic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @JL

    The biggest driver of obesity is our evolutionary novel environments—our obesogenic environments.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25928754/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28449616/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Santoculto

    “So would be interesting if we are capable to think about brain and our control over it as well we think about other organs… but with ”free will” and universal implicit human megalomania…”

    I can make conscious choices to either continue eating well or eat garbage. The choice is on me (as well as the knowledge I have on nutrition). People do have a choice, the question is this: do people have the correct knowledge to apply things to themselves? No, because they get shit advice, like eat less and move more, a calorie is a calorie, and that when in a caloric deficit it doesn’t matter if one eats 65 percent of their diet from carbs are not because ‘all calories are the same’ (which I’ve disproven with my citation from Feinman and Fine, 2004).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. res,

    A new genetic study lends credence to the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model.

    https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b

    Mendelian randomization analyses provide evidence for a causal relationship of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion on body weight, consistent with the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity.

    In summary, we found that genetic predisposition to higher glucose-stimulated insulin secretion was associated with higher BMI. This finding supports the carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity. These results underscore the need for adequately powered clinical trials and mechanistic studies of sufficient duration to explore how individuals with low vs high insulin secretion status respond to diets differing in glycemic load.

    http://clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/64/1/192

    I’m really excited about this paper as it lends credence to the hypothesis that I’ve been pushing in this thread. What a great start to the new year to have genetic evidence for the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @res
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Philip Owen

    Maybe we are talking about the deliberated use of pattern recognition to helps ourselves or to people help themselves to become more healthy and not just “have a higher IQ”. Higher IQ is great to hyper justify in sophisticated ways self inflicted bad behaviors as anorexia. “Higher IQ” may can work for both extreme ends: To over justify bad habits in very convincing ways and to use pattern recognition to find solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @RaceRealist88

    I have absolute certainty that you no have free choice to most things as well most people, “even” me. You believe you have this choice but it’s a illusion, you only have the capacity to choice among things your brain already choose for you. And… I doubt low caloric diet is so bad as you are suggesting. You already have a historical of chronic incompetence to understand the role of abstractions in our factual understanding. And of course I will expect a equally ad hominean comment by yourself.

    The choice is on me…

    Or

    The choice often start and finish on my instincts.

    Exactly..

    I tried to speculate that maybe would be interesting if not just correct we start to think about out brains in the same way we think about our stomach… We have the illusion that “we are our brains”, it’s too but it’s doesn’t mean what our brains decide it’s what we want. We always want, correctly or not so, our well being. So a person with anorexia it’s thinking s/he is doing the best for itself. When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but… MAYBE not.

    About low caloric diet, well people is often different. For some people low caloric diet may work well than for other. Some people may are adapted to low caloric diet.

    Yes a confusedly fragmented comment. I don’t care, I’m not writing a book.

    Jesus,
    I mean, some tormented soul may have understood my comment. Amen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @RaceRealist88

    res,

    Also note the small effect sizes:

    … accounted for 0.9%, 0.05%, and 1.1% of the phenotypic variance in insulin-30, respectively, compared with 0.6%, 9.0%, and 0.7% in the MAGIC consortium.

    I don’t care about the small effect sizes though. Because this is the first actual evidence for the hypothesis beyond verbal argumentation of the body’s physiological system.

    Also note:

    Genetic predisposition to higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion predicted higher adult BMI, whereas the reverse hypothesis—that genetic predisposition to obesity would predict higher levels of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion—did not hold true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Santoculto

    The effect there is education. More educated people know the right choices to make because they’re knowledgeable on it. Just saying what and what not to eat isn’t enough for most people. This is why ‘IQ’ is related here, only because IQ is related to education.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. dearieme says:
    @Philip Owen

    Anorexia is a mental illness. Nobody claimss, do they, that the intelligent are immune to mental illness?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Interesting link. Thanks.

    I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn’t it obvious?):

    In an article published today in Clinical Chemistry’s Special Issue on Obesity, my colleagues in Boston and I used MR to test whether higher insulin secretion throughout one’s life (the exposure) is related to higher body weight (the outcome)— a key assumption of the CIM.

    Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.

    Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?

    Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Stealth says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Stealth is incorrect. High carb diets are horrible for your insulin levels which then lead to obesity and diabetes.”

    Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten – or just not known in the first place – by advocates of the Atkins diet. If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don’t smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn’t less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?

    Go to nutritionfacts.org. I don’t feel like getting into an NIH link war, so I’ll just send you there. Every article and video has citations.

    *I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Alden says:

    I stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs.

    I couldn’t figure out what he is writing about. Is it diabetes? Obesity? Healthy diets in general? The latest health food propaganda? Who sponsored the studies he cites? Is it another Pillsbury Mills and Wheat, corn and grain famers of America study that proves eggs cause heart attacks and people can avoid heart attacks by eating cereal and bread for breakfast?

    I wish all these food propagandists would acknowledge that diabetes is a disease and people with diabetes need different diets than people who don’t have diabetes.

    Since everyone is sharing their personal experiences with food and weight I will share mine.

    After I got home after a year in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living*, I though I’d get meals on wheels rather than get a driver to take me food shopping as I really couldn’t walk through a supermarket anyway. Also my blood pressure was lower than normal which means I can’t walk or stand up sometimes.

    Meals on Wheels purports to be the perfect FDA approved, low calorie, healthy type, ideal food according to the latest fads and fancies.

    1. It’s low salt because as we all know, all old people suffer from high blood pressure and if they have salt they will die of heart attacks.

    2. Low calorie. I estimate the 3 meals were about 1,800 calories instead of 2,000.

    3. Low protein because meat causes heart attacks and obesity doesn’t it? That’s what all the experts and nutriotionists say isn’t it. FDA and nutritionist experts say 3 ounces a day is about right for protein. To me, that’s a vegetarian diet. But the experts know more than I of course Personally I think it was less than 3 ounces of meat a day

    4. Only 2 eggs a week because eggs cause cholesterol and eggs cause heart attacks and old people shouldn’t eat eggs. Guess the anti egg people don’t know that cholesterol is an endocrine secretion secreted by one’s own body.

    5. High, very high, healthy carbs. There was no white rice, white bread, white cereal, even white noodles. The rice was brown and the other carbs were whole wheat in accordance with the latest nutrition myths and fables.

    6. vast amounts of vegetables and fruits. 5 servings of them a day according to the latest nutrition myths and fables. Much of the fruit was canned, but it was canned in water, not syrup so it was low calories.

    7 deserts only about once a week and they were one and all those weird tasting diabetes cakes, pies and ice cream.

    So there I was, no food in the house other than a nutritionally perfect low calorie, low protein, low unhealthy carbs, high healthy carbs and fruits and vegetables meals on wheels diet.

    SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    What happened? First month I gained 10 pounds. Second month 12 pounds. At which point my clothes were too tight.

    So I went back to my usual diet: about 18 or 20 eggs a week, 2 eggs cooked in butter for breakfast and often boiled eggs for another meal. Lots of meat, like at 10 or 12 ounces of meat at dinner. White rice when I have curry. White bread because it has fewer calories than whole wheat bread but with lots of butter. Real ice cream instead of the diabetes ice cream that came with meals on wheels.

    I fasted 3 days a month after getting rid of meals on wheels. unfortunately fasting brings my blood pressure way, way down. But I got rid of those 22 pounds in 3 weeks. And haven’t gained them back although I do fast 3 days a couple of times a month

    One thing I enjoy is people gasping when I salt my food. “Your blood pressure they gasp” “It’s too low I reply” “But salt is bad for blood pressure”

    Anyway, that’s my method for being a healthy thin old person; eggs and meat.

    *courtesy of our nations’s immigration policy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Santoculto
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Alden

    I’ve noticed that nutrition has an weird obsession with heart attacks to the exclusion of all other medical concerns. As you noted, it leads to some interesting conclusions such as focusing on blood pressure when you have low blood pressure and therefore if anything, could use the additional sodium.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    There is a big difference between being educated and believing the latest fads and superstitions about food.

    Anyone old enough to remember when chocolate caused acne and pimples?

    What I find interesting is that about 5 years after all the health experts and educated people started believing that low protein, high carb diets were the healthiest obesity rose and rose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Biff says:

    If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @nsa

    Despite my handle, I have adopted a whole-food, plant-based diet and suggest that anyone concerned about his health should at least look into it. Things have moved on since Pritikin. A good introductory presentation is given here:

    Dr Lim works under Dr John McDougall; Dr Michael Greger takes a slightly different approach, though all proponents of this diet essentially sing from the same hymn-sheet. His website is here:

    https://nutritionfacts.org/

    Other pioneers in this field are Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esselstyn and Neal Barnard. All the information you need is on the internet (including lots of YouTube videos); this is a ‘diet’ in the original sense of the Greek word, meaning a ‘way of life’, with permanent and sustainable benefits – including, amazingly, the reversal of heart disease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Hunsdon says:
    @anon

    I think your advice is pretty simple. But it works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. nsa says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    Familiar with most the people you mention. Notice the hostility here when you introduce a little common sense. The USA is now overrun with degenerative disease, most of which is easily preventable with a shred of self-control and education. Hip and knee replacement, coronaries than resemble sink traps, diabetes….all are diet related and preventable. The average adult american female now weighs 180 lbs. If you want to go on a whale watching expedition, than visit a local walmart. The truth is that most the stuff in an american grocery store is unhealthy or downright poisonous. If it comes in a can, box, bag, cellophane, or bottle …do not eat or drink it.
    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts. Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe. Walk a couple miles a day. You want a friend to walk with, get a doggy pal. As to Adventists, most of them refuse to “eat anything with a pulse”….the ones I know look disgustingly healthy and they all live long lives free of degenerative disease.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @nsa

    Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe.

    Greger estimates the annual mortality in inpatients from iatrogenic causes in the US to be about 200,000, with another 199,000 from the side-effects of prescription drugs. Add to this the reduced vitality – and productivity – of the vastly greater number of medical survivors and you begin to see why things have reached this pass.

    Unfortunately the FDA has a dual role: to advise on a healthy lifestyle and to promote the interests of US agribusiness. #2 takes precedence, simply because of lobbying. And of course it is very much in the interests of the medical and pharmaceutical sectors to have a sickly population, just as it is in the interests of law-enforcement to have plenty of miscreants to play with.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. AaronB says:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    It’s amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don’t match up with reality.

    Not that he cares – reality is no match for a simple, elegant theory that doesn’t work. That’s how our elites think today. It’s like IQ.

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain – our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.

    But maybe anxiety makes people overeat, maybe hopelessness, maybe a culture that tells you to enjoy yourself without limit, maybe even materialism makes people overeat.

    Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don’t have.

    We should look into it, but we won’t, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we’ll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. nsa says:
    @nsa

    Corrections before the spelling nazis show up: “than” to “that”, “than” to “then”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    The most intelligent thing to do would be to look at countries where people are thin, and at traditional diets, and consider ALL the facts.

    Good idea. Might also look at one’s own country in the same way.

    I mean, is it really any wonder that Americans are the fattest people in the world with the rest of the Anglosphere doing their best to catch up, when so manyl spend so much time stuffing their guts with hamburgers, French fries, and fudge sundaes, washed down with Coke or Pepsi, then, to fill the gaps, going to the supermarket for a cartload of the cheapest food commodities processed by the addition of water, fructose syrup and a few dozen thickening, coloring, flavoring and texturizing chemicals, the products beautifully packaged and priced ten thousand percent over the price of the basic ingredients, and paid for at a check-out set beside a spread of candy bars plus the National Enquirer to insure the total obliteration of both bodily and mental health.

    But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism. No way now that women are going back to the kitchen, to prepare healthy meals from fresh vegetables, unprocessed meat and home-preserved fruit, home-made bread, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @AaronB
    , @Leslie Jacobs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Spend the holidays in a former communist country where the food and drink are often still horrible and you will lose weight. The endless hours of torturous airline travel to get there and back will further reduce your caloric intake.

    I just got home and found out I lost five pounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    The fast food industry’s most faithful customers are men who don’t want to cook. So is take out, especially pizza which has a zillion calories a slice.

    They wouldn’t even have to buy a cook book. They could find all the recipes they need on their cell phones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Alden says:
    @Anonymous

    Depends on which of the latest fables, myths, superstitions and fads you believe.

    Food advertising is both overt positive advertising for a product and covert negative propaganda against rival products.

    Example positive: chicken is low calorie cheap and prevents heart attacks.

    Negative: beef and pork are fattening, expensive and cause heart attacks and high blood pressure.

    Both are the result of “studies” by the chicken producers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    I thought legumes are beans were supposed to be healthy.

    Fava beans contain inhibitors of various digestive enzymes, including alpha-amylase, trypsin and chymotrypsin – as do other pulses and legumes, including peas and soybeans. However, the inhibitors are largely eliminated or destroyed by either soaking or cooking or both.

    Fava beans also contain an inhibitor of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, which can cause jaundice (that is, the inhibitor can cause jaundice, not the enzyme) in individuals with a genetically determined deficiency in the enzyme. Such deficiency is particularly common in the Mediterranean region, Africa and southern Asia.

    The Greeks were generally wary about beans and Pythagoras banned their consumption among his followers, possibly because he considered farting a distraction while considering a mathematical problem in depth.

    Read More
    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    So why can’t men, especially all the single men who don’t live with women learn to make jam, can fruit and vegetables, make homemade bread, soup from scratch, and avoid all those foods that come in packages?

    I mean, what’s to stop them?

    Well maybe some do it. But mostly single males are doing what single males have to do: fighting to climb the ladder of wealth, power and social status, when they’re not free to feed some girl with chocolates or a hamburger and coke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Alden says:
    @AaronB

    Thank you Aaron, a voice of reason and
    and skeptism in a sea of the naive and credulous who believe any thing they read about food.

    I think a lot of this healthy eating is just snobbery. “ I eat healthy according to the latest fads and fables, therefore I am superior to the proles and peasants who eat unhealthy”

    I admit I’m disdainful of food propaganda. It’s probably because I live in California and have been lectured about food all my life by the naive and credulous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    They still have to eat. And why should they have to depend on a live in woman to cook for them?

    Here is a recipe for homemade tomato soup. Buy a big can of tomato juice. Dump in a pot. Boil for a few minutes. Taste. Add some salt and pepper if you want. To be a real gourmet, add some garlic salt and dry basil or oregano.

    Dinner

    Stick a potato in microwave. Push button Put a steak or pork chop in a frying pan. Turn on burner. Cook till done. Chop up lettuce.

    Eat dinner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @AaronB

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    True. But, more than that- only food freaks & fanatics obsess over food. Man is more than what he eats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Alden says:
    @Simon Tugmutton

    Ah yes, eat certain foods, avoid other foods and you won’t have a heart attack.

    I wonder what farmers paid for those books to be written.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Alden says:
    @Biff

    excellent!!!. At one time there was a thing where you could get your teeth wired together so you couldn’t chew.

    Idea was just sip liquid food through a straw. Like so many food fads, it’s disappeared.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @RaceRealist88

    That’s my point. Obesity is not just an IQ issue. Try to see the spaces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Alden says:

    The title of this article should be

    “Diet as a Test of Credulity”

    Credulous comes from the 16th-century Latin credulus, or “easily believes.” A synonym for credulous is gullible, and both terms describe a person who accepts something willingly without a lot of supporting facts. Calling someone credulous can imply that the person is naive and simple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Absolutely agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @James Thompson

    Your position suggests that obesity is a choice not a disease. But for T2 diabetics at least, there is some evidence that the insulin resistance comes before the weight gain. Taubes has sources. I gained weight in a boarding school without my own tuck box which I chose not to have. So on the whole, I ate less than the others.

    If obesity is a choice then low IQ is, as you suggest, an issue. So we need to protect such people with training. so far I don’t think we know enough. If obesity is a disease, not necessarily a mirror image of anorexia (anorexia/OCD, obesity/depression), we need to modify the environment and perhaps not just the food supply.

    For the record, these days, I blame wheat intolerance for my weight gain. I now have a Flash Glucose Meter. I can monitor BS minute by minute. The smallest amount of wheat and my BS shoots up and stays up until excretion. A bowlful of rice and it goes up and down in 45 minutes as it should. more or less. But that is a discussion for somewhere else. Can you suggest any researchers in South Wales who might be studying triggers for insulin intolerance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @RaceRealist88

    Agree

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Santoculto

    Yes. People of lower IQ can be protected by training. Religion used to do this, even in the dietary area with fasts, special feasts and forbidden foods. We do not all have to work everything out from scratch, although this is what modern society expects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Santoculto

    “When a person have lower or even avg self consciousness s/he tend to think s/he is its brain, but… MAYBE not.”

    It is interesting that my blood glucose level (metered by a flash meter) changes BEFORE I decide to change activity. My BG/Insulin is anticipating (or controlling) my activity level. Direction of change doesn’t seem to matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Alden says:
    @nsa

    Who goes to Walmart? Never been to one in my life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Eat less/move more does not work.

    I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Alden

    It’s mean people as you are expensive to the ideal balance between ”man” and nature…

    Less ”carnivorous” [expensive energetic people] would be good, even i believe ”bacon-lovers” tend to be more prone to be less empathetic, more psychopathic, … stupid…

    lack of empathy

    or lack of understanding of empathy, combined with reason …

    and the result is this current nightmare whole world is living thanks for the white trash xtrians and neo-messionics und jewish megalomaniacal retards…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Alden

    Maybe you are propagandist of

    so-called

    ”meat”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Decades ago before HVAC, workplaces were warm in winter

    But the environmentalist liberals forced all buildings to install HVAC

    So every workplace is now freezing cold with cold wind blowing from ventilators every 3 feet in the ceiling, floor and in the walls.

    So workplaces are much colder than they were before 1975.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Thanks for the information from medical sources not just frauds wanting to sell books

    My motto in life is the old French proverb “don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does”

    Since about 1980 every food faddist and scam artist has preached high carb low protein is the cure for obesity.
    And since 1980 Americans who follow the low protein high carb health food diets get fatter and fatter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Alden says:

    Why this puritanical obsession with what other people eat?

    Why this puritanical obsession with other people’s weight?

    Why this puritanical obsession with other people.?

    Isn’t going around bragging about what one eats a symptom of narcissism or snobbery or arrogance or something?

    Maybr people brag about what they eat because they have nothing else to brag about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So women who have hard jobs and work long hours should make home made bread, can vegetables, make jam and jelly, cook everything from scratch but it’s perfectky ok for men who have the same demanding jobs to live on pizza and Burger King?

    Single men are the biggest consumers of fast food.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well, you have to wonder why Americans eat so much. Other countries don’t.

    There’s plenty of junk food in Japan, and classic french dishes like steak frites is not so different from a hamburger and fries.

    I know plenty of vegetarians and home cookers who are fat.

    I think it’s not so much the food as the culture and psychology. Something is wrong with us on that level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    Hey, that’s exactly what I do! And last time I checked, I was still losing weight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AaronB says:
    @Alden

    Some of it is snobbery, you’re right, but I think there is a general sense that something is wrong with us and no one knows quite what.

    Since we’re materialists, we look at physical things for an explanation, and food is an obvious place to look.

    I think our obsession with food is really about our general unhappiness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Exactly. We are materialists, so we obsess over food and health. Even health shouldn’t be our prime concern, not beyond a certain minimal point.

    But of course, we’re materialists, do what could be more important than physical health.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. utu says:
    @anon

    The difference is the food.

    Yes to some extent, but also daily movements.

    Smaller apartments, smaller refrigerators, frequent daily shopping of food in neighborhood stores.
    Old cities with narrow streets, less time spent in cars.
    Less mobility so several generations of people live near by and thus better social connections.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Except of fava beans there was no beans in “pre-Columbian” Europe. Out of legumes Europeans had peas, lentils and chick peas plus some lupin beans.

    Everything in moderation. Beans are good for you in moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. utu says:
    @anon

    Another pseudo-scientific wacko!

    Grains are good for you. Moderation is even better for you. This includes beans in moderation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Re:

    Nutrition is one of those fields we know very little about. We know almost no more than we knew a hundred years ago.

    Actually, a hundred years ago almost nothing was known about nutrition. For example, it was not until the 1920′s that there was much progress on identification of vitamins. Now we know almost everything there is to be known about nutrition except possibly the role of certain trace elements.

    Amazingly, as knowledge about nutrition has advanced, the adequacy of Western diets, as driven by commercial interests, has seriously deteriorated. Most Europeans and North Americans, for example, are magnesium deficient, a result of changes in water supplies, in the mineral content of intensively cultivated fruit and vegetables, and the increased dependence on processed and fast foods.

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Alden says:
    @Santoculto

    Not at all. I just noticed how much weight I gained on that high carb low protein low sodium no sugar FDA approved meals on wheels diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Alden says:
    @Santoculto

    I admit to mo empathy for the food propaganda created by Jolly Green Giant, Pillsbury Mills, and the wheat and grain farmers .

    Some people will believe anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Alden says:
    @nsa

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Take a physiology course. Protein builds and repairs muscles, bones and blood. Glucose builds fat and the brain.

    All carbs from lettuce to sugar turn into glucose in the intestines and create fat.

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    , @JL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Most probably in large part as a result of magnesium deficiency (possibly aggravated by excess consumption of calcium in dairy products) most Americans are more or less nuts and half of them take anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, which is tremendously profitable for Big Pharma.

    I think you may have magnesium deficiency that explains your nuttiness. The nuttiness of our age is exemplified by the motto “you are what you eat.” It is culture that determines what we are. You are what you read, what you hear, what you watch. And since you hear “you are what you eat” all the time you end up believing it.

    The weight loss or weight gain issue is simple and basic: if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. utu says:
    @Alden

    Some people will believe anything.

    Including people who think their personal experience can be extrapolated into universal laws. I meant you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @AaronB

    Well, in Japan, the quantities are much smaller. At some point in the US, fast food went into a signaling spiral with cheap and large quantities of food that has had definitely negative results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @RaceRealist88

    I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body.

    My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @nsa

    Once again you have stated “avoid all fats.”

    Good luck with that!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Remember that death is the eventual result of too much living.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL…

    LOL. Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz to prove the conservation of mass has to be some kind of nut, magnesium deficient or otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. res says:
    @Alden

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Are you familiar with the Glycemic Index idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

    While skimming that link just now I found out something I did not know. Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

    high-protein foods and bakery products that are rich in fat and refined carbohydrates “elicit insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Though highly correlated with GI, the insulin response can diverge from what one would expect

    Yes, depending on food source, blood glucose make spike rapidly and very high, or rise moderately but over a sustained period. The difference in outcome could be that between a medical emergency and the prolonged maintenance of a healthy energy level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Anyone who needs make reference to Auschwitz

    Actually I have spoken from a personal experience so I am not just anyone here. An aunt of my father was very overweight before the WWII. She survived Auschwitz where she lost a lot of weight and then “lived happily ever after.” I remember her well. As a kid I sometimes heard “Auschwitz was good for her” spoken by my dad who had a peculiar sense of humor. (BTW, she was not the only family member who was in Auschwitz. Some others died there.) This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours, that somehow made us lose ability to think soberly when the word Auschwitz is uttered. Anyway I would not blame magnesium for this rigidity. Or do you think Jews were particularly magnesium deficient after WWII? Anyway, I am for normalizing Auschwitz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @bluestateblues

    I think it depends on your hormonal balance at the time. Mostly Move More does nothing for me but I have had two dramatic weight loss events that were linked to move more or accurately, Lift More. But this was at a very intense level, once training to row at inter university level and once during another intensive exercise bout where I switched from cardio to gym. OTOH training for and running marathons did nothing. For me, it has to be high intensity anaerobic exercise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    This was in times when the rigid narrative of Holocaust was not established yet and did not take over our brains, including the magnesium deficient ones like yours

    Sour and basically off the wall as usual. And hardly a rational explanation for your previous comments. Perhaps you have eaten too many beans.

    As for whether Jews are or were magnesium deficient, it’s not the sort of question I worry about, or would even consider sensible to reflect upon.

    Bugger the Jews, I say. Why should everyone obsess about them? I wish them well, but I am more concerned about my own people than about them, just as they, for most part it would seem, are vastly more concerned about themselves than for anyone else.

    Glad your aunt survived Auschwitz, by the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Right, portions are much smaller. Also in France, btw.

    But this goes back to culture. Why do the Japanese prefer smaller portions. Why do the Japanese think small is beautiful, and Americans think the bigger the better.

    I believe it really goes back to first principles – ones attitude to ego, ones attitude to materialism, etc. It seems to me someone who likes to see himself as self assertive and strong and aggressive and cares only for material things will be prone to eating more, huge portions of steak, etc, he’ll drive an SUV.

    I like to trace everything back to first principles. It’s not a coincidence Anglo cultures are the fattest. These attitudes may seem to have nothing to do with eating, but everything is related.

    I admit tho the Mexican obesity rate doesn’t fit my theory very well. Mexicans are warm chilled out people don’t have huge egos.

    Maybe it’s the anxiety of living so close to America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @res

    “I confess to being a bit baffled by this being considered so important (isn’t it obvious?)”

    It is obvious but it lends credence to the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity.

    “Especially given that the association would hold under either direction of causation they discussed.”

    They tested the other model (genetic predisposition to obesity didn’t predict high insulin) and it didn’t hold. The causation goes ‘genetic predisposition’ for elevated insulin. Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion is causally related to BMI.

    “Regarding insulin, it seems to me there are two obvious effects of insulin in play:
    - Increasing cell nutrient uptake.
    - High glycemic index foods causing insulin spikes followed by glucose crashes causing increased food intake.

    Any thoughts on which of these (or other effects) is most important?”

    More important regarding obesity? It’s because elevated insulin causes insulin resistance which causes elevated insulin since the body is already insulin resistant which makes the body more insulin resistant etc. It’s a vicious cycle. When insulin is high, fat cannot be unlocked from the adipocyte, as the body has glucose from carbohydrate consumption to use for energy and it leaves the fat cells untouched. The physiological effect of insulin effectively ‘locking’ the fat cell is one of the most important factors, along with perpetually elevated insulin levels.

    “Do you use blood glucose, HbA1c, and/or insulin measures in your nutritional practice? Anything else?”

    Fasting blood glucose is most important to identify diabetes/pre-diabetes. HbA1c (glucose control) is critical too. Exercise and LCHF/LCKD helps with this (see the cites in my first comment).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Stealth

    “Animal protein causes insulin to rise, too, something that is conveniently forgotten – or just not known in the first place – by advocates of the Atkins diet.”

    I am aware. I like high protein diet for relatively sedentary people (compared to people who weightlift/strength train).

    “If meat and dairy are so good for you, then why are the longest lived peoples on Earth largely vegetarian? You could tell me the Seventh Day Adventists live to their late eighties because they don’t smoke and drink, but at the very least that means that the diet itself isn’t less healthy than the Atkins Diet*. Are you going to tell me next that they would live to a hundred and twenty if they just stayed in ketosis?”

    No I won’t tell you that they’d live to 120 if they stayed in ketosis. Seventh Day Adventists are mutliethnic, but after controlling for ethnicity, physical acitivity, etc, vegans had a lower BMI etc than nonvegetarians.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

    This can be attributed to the nonvegans’ SAD (Standard American Diet) diet, full of processed carbs. Studies that compare these diets and show all of these negative things about meat consumption are only observational studies. For instance SAD dieters are more likely to be smokers and not exercise. People who take their health and lifestyles seriously live longer. It’s not shocking.

    “*I derisively call any high fat/low carb regimen the Atkins Diet. The guy had a lot of copycats who recycled his ideas, adding cosmetic differences, to sell their own books.”

    Any examples?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Alden

    The rise in obesity started during the late 70s, after fat was demonized and carbs were championed. It’s something in the environment that occurred around that time to cause this. Which is the introduction of high sugar, high carb, highly processed, calorie dense foods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Biff

    “If you want to lose weight go on a soup only diet, and dispose of all utensils in your house except chopsticks. It’ll work. Trust me.”

    Or just fast a few times a week (read Jason Fung on fasting) and eat sensibly (not too much processed food). It’ll work. Trust me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @nsa

    “Avoid all fats”

    Why?

    “especially murdered animal parts”

    Can you hide your true intentions better? You were doing pretty good until this. I bet you hate Nina Teicholz.

    “Stay away from MDs and do not ingest anything they prescribe.”

    Eating things ‘with a pulse’ is good. Christmas and Thanksgiving are great because of the turkey. I love turkey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. JL says:
    @Alden

    All protein turns into iron in the intestines and builds muscles, blood and bones.

    Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

    I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @AaronB

    “It’s amusing to see so many people write so much bullshit about it with such confidence. Gary Taubes writes massive learned tomes about it, but his theories don’t match up with reality.”

    Examples?

    “No one ever looks at psychological factors in weight gain – our materialism says that it has to be some chemichal in our food. Something physical.”

    Traci Mann wrote a book on it chroniciling 20 years of her research.

    “Countries where people are thin, Japan, France, etc, do seem to have some peculiar cultural features that fat Anglo cultures don’t have.”

    East Asian countries are explainable through the CIM. Percent of carbohydrate intake is nowhere near as important as the absolute amount of carbohydrates consumed.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-do-some-cultures-stay-lean-while-still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates

    “We should look into it, but we won’t, because we suffer from a bad case of learned stupidity, and we’ll just continue to argue about carbs and protein and other sciency sounding chemicals.”

    Because it matters. China is now currently leading in childhood obesity.

    http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1938620/explosion-childhood-obesity-china-worst-ever-expert-says-new

    One in four Chinese children expected to be overweight by 2030.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/one-four-china-children-expected-overweight-2030-amid-obesity/

    Why is that? The Western Diet. It is a scourge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Bardon Kaldian

    “Man is more than what he eats.”

    One of the most untrue statements I’ve ever seen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Alden

    “Study says soda doesn’t cause weight gain.!!*”

    * Based on the flawed twin model and funded by Coca-Cola.

    That’s most of these studies. They just get paid by Coke/Big Food to ‘find the result’ they want. “Extra kcal in the form sugar doesn’t cause weight gain, trust us.”‘

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Philip Owen
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @bluestateblues

    “I dunno. I lost 90 pounds by eating less and moving more. YMMV, of course.”

    n=1

    Eat less/move more implies that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ and it doesn’t matter where the food comes from. Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Santoculto

    People with such extreme biases against meat-eaters are not logical at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @utu

    ” if Energy_Spent ≥ Energy_Absorbed you are losing weight and if Energy_Spent ≤ Energy_Absorbed you are gaining weight.”

    CICO is wrong. Food source matters too.

    “Anybody who does not believe it should put himself on Auschwitz KL or Kolyma GULAG regime diet and work plan.”

    This was studied. See Ancel Keys’s starvation experiment:

    Ancel Keys estimated that these subjects were eating roughly 3,200 calories per day. They were put onto a ‘semi-starvation’ diet of 1,560 calories per day with foods similar to those available in war-torn Europe at the time – potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni. They were then monitored for a further 20 weeks after the semi-starvation period.

    Resting metabolic rate dropped by 40%. Interestingly, this is not that far off of the previous study from 1917 that showed TEE decreased by 30%. In other words, the body was shutting down. Let’s think about this again from the body’s point of view. The body is accustomed to getting 3,200 calories per day and now it gets 1,560. In order to preserve itself, it implements across the board reductions in energy.

    https://idmprogram.com/the-biology-of-starvation-calories-part-v/

    Jason Fung decimates CI/CO. The starvation experiment proves that calories in/out are not independent of one another. (Keeping in mind that 1500 kcal per day is nowhere near starvation, so this wasn’t even a true starvation experiment.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘I have just spent some time diverted to and via the link to
    the “notpoliticallycorrect” site wrt sickle cells and I see a number of articles by RaceRealist that seem pretty good (also AfroSapiens who has made brief appearances here) and so I seek confirmation that you are both that RaceRealist as well as RaceRealist88 on UR??????”

    Yes that is me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Diet as IQ” suggest we are reasonable about our appetites. If our IQ is higher, our diets will be better (adjusting I suppose for the size of our wallets).

    But we diet not for reasonable reasons (health) but for other impulses: we are vain and want to look thin, or athletic. We are tired and just want a cookie and coffee, or two, or the whole box. Or we are happy and with friends and will have another drink, or two, or.. We are influentiable and easily gluttonous.

    The medievals, who held their afterlifes as a centrally important goal, could be fooled into spending their money on Church indulgences, as Chaucer’s very funny tale about the wily Pardoner shows. 

    What do we centrally value today? Who are the Pardoners of our time? Those who sell health. Diet books, diet supplements, diet plans, super foods, organic anything. Medical charlatans. Throw in whole the beauty industry.

    Here’s how the Pardoner riled up his crowd:

    Here, chaps! The three of us together now,

    Hold up your hands, like me, and we’ll be brothers 95 

    In this affair, and each defend the others,

    And we will kill this traitor Death, I say! 

    Away with him as he has made away

    With all our friends. God’s dignity! Tonight!”

    They made their bargain, swore with appetite, 

    These three, to live and die for one another

    As brother-born might swear to his born brother. 

    And up they started in their drunken rage,

    And made towards this village which the page 

    And publican had spoken of before.

    Many and grisly were the oaths they swore, 

    Tearing Christ’s blessed body to a shred;

    “If we can only catch him, Death is dead!”

    Nowadays they just swear a certain diet — heavy on blood screening and expensive supplements–, by some diet whiz will be our salvation from Chron’s or Hashimoto’s, and we are sold!! Human nature never changes.

    Read More
    • Agree: AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. @Lars Porsena

    “I take Jame’s point about diet being an IQ test, because so many people do not believe that the fundamental laws of physics apply to the human body.”

    Care to elaborate? I already discussed the First and Second Law. In case you didn’t see:

    “So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else. This is precisely what happened on the Biggest Loser as seen in the study featured in the New York Times. This is also precisely what happens during any caloric reduction diet.

    That is why these diets are doomed to fail. Studies of this strategy estimate failure rates at 99%. Notice that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken in any way. It is irrelevant.”

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant

    The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-3-9

    People who don’t understand human physiology and think that calories in/out are independent of each other and that ‘the first law is relevant’ and ‘a calorie is a calorie’ are wrong and dogmatic in their views which ends up hurting people in the long run.

    “My take, it’s not about IQ, diet is primarily a religious purity issue, whether the people giving diet advice realize they are religious or not.”

    You’re aware this holds for pretty much everything, right? It seems that it’s your religion to believe that the First Law is somehow relevant to human physiology. It’s not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @res

    Insulin index > glycemic index. The insulin index has foods on it that are not on the glycemic index but spike blood glucose higher despite eliciting no insulin response.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-index/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements? I have noticed that you seem to be attracted to iconoclastic ideas and the power of this attraction seems to kill your common sense. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run. I guess it is is partly because talking nonsense if free and safe and you get away with it more likely once you develop a reputation of a crank. I think you need a reality to hit you in the face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @anonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @CanSpeccy

    Gotta think of insulin, too. Insulin controls blood sugar. Spiking your blood sugar spikes insulin which leads to insulin resistance then diabesity.

    https://idmprogram.com/insulin-resistance-protects-insulin-t2d-26/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @JL

    “Not so, your liver can convert protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis. It’s one of the reasons protein intake should be limited. T2D sufferers, in particular, need to be especially careful on this front.”

    Yes. This is well known. It’s why protein is kept low to moderate.

    https://idmprogram.com/how-much-protein-is-excessive/

    “I was initially skeptical of the diet/IQ link, but the posts of nsa and utu are leading to me reconsider that the theory actually has some merit.”

    Be skeptical, because it’s reaching.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @RaceRealist88

    For good measure, see the Biggest Loser Study:

    Mean RMR after 6 years was ∼500 kcal/day lower than expected based on the measured body composition changes and the increased age of the subjects.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    The graphs on the metabolic slowdown for some of the biggest contestants are particularly shocking. It’s metabolic adaptation; as you lose weight your body drops its metabolism to what you’re eating. It’s using the glucose from the carbs you eat (remember, a calorie is a calorie—supposedly) and leaving body fat untouched. CI/CO proponents are wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @utu

    Here. 12 weeks of HIIT for children did not reduce adiposity but they had better cardiorespiratory fitness.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0777-0

    Can you explain how exercise would lead to weight loss and then how to circumvent the changes in the brain to offset what you did during exercise?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Alden says:
    @utu

    I never claimed my personal experience extrapolated into universal laws.

    But at least my personal experience of gaining 22 pounds in 2 months of low protein, low fat, fake sugar diabetic deserts and high “healthy” carbs incorporating all the latest fads in correct diets was an experience.

    It wasn’t a naive gullible credulous parroting of the latest food fads promulgated by food producers urging the gullible to eat their food A instead of a rival food B

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. JL says:
    @RaceRealist88

    This is well known.

    Sure, but not by the commenter, who, I take it, is diabetic. So I just thought I’d point it out.

    Be skeptical, because it’s reaching.

    That was an attempt at a moment of levity and a chance to take a dig at two of the most odious, imo, commenters here at Unz. That I find myself on the other end of the opinions of these two on the diet issue, like pretty much everything else, surprises me not in the least. I don’t buy the IQ/diet argument, the author here seems to just be looking for evidence of some kind of all encompassing IQ-is-everything theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I think you’re right.

    One reason I react badly to food fads is that it’s mostly a liberal thing. It’s the liberal Puritans wanting to control every aspect of our lives.

    If I lived in a cold climate I’d wear a fur coat to defy liberals. I only use White American men as drs, attorneys, accountants, mechanics contractors etc for the same reason.
    Liberals forbid me to hire White American men. So I do it to defy liberals.

    Resisting food fads is to resist liberals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Just add a big blob of that jillion calorie a teaspoon salad dressing to the lettuce and you’ll gain weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Very simple. Because the condition

    Energy_Spent > Energy_Absorbed

    was not fulfilled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Sparkon says:

    Natural, unprocessed foods are best. Butter is much better than margarine, and sugar is much, much better than aspartame.

    Back in the 50s, we all drank sody pop like water, and nobody got fat. ‘Also ate candy bars virtually every day, but all those sweets were naturally flavored. Of course, we walked a lot, and rode our bikes, played sports, ran in the woods, even tried to dance when we got up the nerve.

    Did I mention that nobody was fat, and the gals all had great legs back then? And not a tattoo or nose ring to be seen.

    No wonder there is Boomer Envy. It did happen here, and now, it ain’t too pretty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. Alden says:
    @Santoculto

    Mean people, meat people, Jewish retards expensive balance between man and nature? Psycopathetic lack of empathy?

    Is your post a result of google translate?

    Or are your eating habits some kind of weirdo religion instead of food?

    If you think it’s a sin to eat meat, fine, that’s your religion. Promulgate it all you want. But don’t expect a mass conversion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @reiner Tor

    Right, eating less doesn’t work because willpower can’t survive the first hunger pangs. But if you simply switch to the right diet, then you can eat all you want without ever getting hungry n still lose weight. Twice a year I switch to eating only meat for 8-10 days, nothing else. I eat all I want n never get hungry. I go into mild ketosis for the last couple of days, but that’s not what does the trick. Its not so much what I’m eating that does the trick, which is mostly fish. Its what I’m not eating: cakes, pies, carbs etc. I typically lose 10 lbs. If I want to lose more, I will eat normally for 2 weeks, then return to the diet for another 8-10 days. For me it works. And it’s much cheaper than buying a new wardrobe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Exercise does not induce weight loss.

    Why do you like to make nonsensical pronouncements?…. I am sure you might be fun at your aunt’s dinner party but this schtick has no legs for a long distance run.

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise (running, weights, hiking…) and a supposedly “healthy” diet with lots of whole grains, lentils, beans, etc. After age 30 the exercise-mediated growth hormone response goes away, and exercise no longer works for weight control even in individuals for whom it worked previously. Past age 30 it’s ALL diet, and most diet advice in our society is just dead wrong.

    I lost 55 lbs by doing an Atkins-like protocol — low-carb/high-fat aka ketogenic diet — and have kept it off effortlessly for several years now. Despite the fact that a weightlifting injury has severely impaired my ability to exercise.

    The science behind ketogenic diets is solid, unrefuted, and has been known since the 60s. Controlling insulin is the key to controlling fat, and limiting carbs is the only way that genetically susceptible people can control insulin… UNLESS they get 4-5 hours of exercise per day, which is great for the Amish or a Greek island centenarian but nobody with an urban job has time for that much. An hour a day in the gym or on the track is just not enough to counteract hyperinsulinemia genetics, you need to be active all day… or go low carb. If you have those genes your choices are, convert to Amish, go ketogenic, or be fat. Period, end of story.

    Oh, and diet is an IQ test.. Great. I have a PhD in chemistry. I won’t quote my IQ here because you wouldn’t believe me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @RaceRealist88

    Freezing to death will burn some serious calories, to be sure. I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:
    @anonymous

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise

    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:

    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed

    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    The rate of weight loss will depend on foods you eat and type of exercises you do but as long as you manage to fulfill the inequality you will lose weight regardless of what food you eat and what you do. Gym and exercises are not really necessary. Work in your garden, clean you house, walk to store instead of driving will do. It is easier to keep your weight down if you live in European city than American city. Running and going to gym is just pointless burning energy unless somebody would pay you for it or your stationary bike had a dynamo so you could lower your energy bills.

    But if what you do works for you, keep doing what you are doing whether you eat spaghetti or steak Tartare, however do not put too much credence in all bio-chemistry explanations that you made yourself believe in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @anonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dr. Krieger

    I wonder if anyone has researched how much faster one could lose weight in winter by keeping the house at 60° rather than 70°.

    It would depend. With an appropriate change in clothing, thermal underwear, thick wool socks, etc., I cannot see that lowering the thermostat would make any difference. That’s how everyone lived in wartime Britain — to the astonishment, so I have read, of important Americans visiting the mansions and palaces of the English aristocracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Pay no attention to utu. He has some little bit of math which he thinks trumps all other knowledge. Yet the fact remains that exercise does, as you indicate, tend to cause weight increase in adolescents. During my school days, following an intensive, six-day-a-week regime of athletics, gymnastics, swimming and chasing a stupid oval ball, I consistently put on weight during term-time, despite an unappetizing school diet, whereas I generally lost weight during vacations when I dined, ad lib, on decent food.

    Presumably, the exercise increased appetite sufficiently to generate a surplus of intake over output, most likely accounted for at least in part by muscle development. During vacations, spent devoted to more intellectual pursuits, the muscle must have wasted away.

    Other explanations are possible, however. School food was high in cheap carbohydrates, bread, potatoes and porridge, whereas home food was richer in fats and protein. Some studies indicate that fats promote weight accumulation, i.e., greater input than output. However, if the ketogenic (i.e., high fat) diet causes weight loss, there must be something about it to cause output to exceed input — probably a reduction in sugar, which is an appetite stimulant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    But there are other angles to consider. Dietary intake does not equal uptake, therefore utu’s equation is invalid, if energy absorbed is supposed to equal dietary intake. Another term is required, uptake efficiency. And uptake efficiency may well vary with exercise regime.

    In addition, gut flora will be modified by the composition of the diet, which in turn will likely affect uptake efficiency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Alden says:
    @Dr. Krieger

    Supposedly living in cold causes fat to grow to insulate you from the cold.

    Back when mini skirts were in style, some idiot experts claimed that mini skirts caused the legs to get fat because the legs were exposed to the cold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    The high carb propaganda of the 1970s had a lot to do with wage stagnation and price inflation

    The average person just couldn’t afford a lot of meat and fish any more. So Americans were forced by necessity to go to the rice beans noodles tortillas bread and potatoes diets of the poor.

    The government FDA suddenly discovered that meat was unhealthy and a high carb diet was healthy.

    There was already plenty of processed and sugary food at the time Young Liberals being naive and gullible, decided a poor peasant diets was cool because it was different from the prosperous middle class meat and potatoes meals if their parents

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Alden says:
    @JL

    The protein in blood doesn’t get to the liver because it all goes into building bones, muscles and blood.

    Physiology 101 and why orthopedic patients are given high protein diets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Alden says:
    @AaronB

    Supposedly the Mexican obesity rate is higher than America’s. Mexicans always ate rice beans and corn with just a little meat because they were poor.

    Americans didn’t get on the rice beans bread corn bread and potatoes diet until wages went down related to the cost of living in the 1970’s.

    At which point the government and liberals decided to make the best of it and told everybody that a poor people’s high carb diet was healthy

    After 20 years of high carb low protein obesity was high. 40 years after high carb low protein obesity was higher.

    40 years and 200 million obese people are the proof that high carb low protein causes obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    I heard a scientist on a late night radio show in the U.S. that dabbles in science as well paranormal stuff blame obesity on Edison. He said that before electric lighting, people used to burn a lot more wood, and then use the wood ashes to fertilize their gardens, and the ashes created more nutrient dense vegetables. He claimed that we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @utu

    My guess is that the Holocaust selected for endomorphs, because it killed more of the ectomorphs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Philip Owen

    Lifting more didn’t help my body weight, but I was already diabetic when I started it. But I do think it’s helped with controlling blood sugar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Sin City Milla

    Will power gets a boost from seeing results, but when the results stall, then it’s tough to stick with a diet. That’s been my experience with low carb diets. I may try fasting next. I like the idea that I don’t have to put any foods off limits entirely on the days when I’m eating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @utu

    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then? Continue to decrease kcal? Keep in mind this is assuming that ‘a calorie is a calorie’.

    If someone ate 66 percent carbs and another 66 percent fat, who would find compliance easier? Who would reach their goal weight?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Sin City Milla

    People focus on what or how to eat, but never *when to eat*. That’s the biggest factor here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @utu

    Utu do you have any citations showing that exercise induces weight loss? I’ve already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology. Do you think that a calorie is a calorie?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. AaronB says:
    @Alden

    I assume you’re joking.

    High carb lowith protein has been the diet of mankind since the dawn of agriculture. Obesity is quite recent.

    The Japanese eat high carb low protein. French eat about 3 Oz cuts of meat in a meal.

    It doesn’t matter what u eat. Just eat less. And probably avoid big food corporations. I dint trust them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @CanSpeccy

    The equation isn’t valid because calories in and out are not independent. If you change the in, the out changes too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Alden

    An outstanding example is the Pima. Before the introduction of the Western diet they weren’t obese or diabetics. Then they ate a Western diet, then what happened? Quotes here:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/21/on-diseases-of-civilization-romanticizing-the-hunter-gatherers-diet/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Dave Pinsen

    Read Jason Fung on this.

    https://idmprogram.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @AaronB

    This is bullshit.

    Do you have citations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Too many unquantifable factors to name, move more eat less will probably result in less than obese weight. Genetics, lifestyle all play a part. Good food counts, unprocessed is a must, willpower plays a part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Sparkon says:

    If you want to lose weight, do not drink diet soda, or consume so-called “light” foods. Note that even some baby food contains artificial sweetners.

    The consumption of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners has been linked to weight gain and increased body mass index (BMI):

    Abstract:
    America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products (Figure 1). Both forward and reverse causalities have been proposed [1,2]. While people often choose “diet” or “light” products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain.[...]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

    Artificial sweeteners have other adverse health effects, in addition to weight gain:

    Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s.

    Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.

    Again in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.

    Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with “striking” increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.

    Research published in PLOS One also found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including:

    • Abdominal obesity
    • Insulin resistance
    • Impaired glucose intolerance
    • Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
    • High blood pressure

    The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 67 percent (regardless of whether they [sic] gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36 percent.

    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/12/06/aspartame-causes-obesity.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    we eat more today because we’re deprived of certain minerals are wood burning ancestors had a surfeit of

    That makes sense. Wood ash will generally contain the minerals that become depleted in intensively cultivated soil. Moreover, there is evidence from animal studies that mineral deficiency affects appetite in the way suggested. The fast food people are probably onto it already, ensuring that their hamburgers and fudge sundaes are deficient in magnesium or whatever it is that makes utu so ill mannered, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    No it doesn’t. The rise in obesity came long after the time Americans discontinued using wood as a primary heating and cooking fuel.

    There is good correlation however, between increasing rates of obesity and the consumption of artificial sweeteners.

    But wait! There’s more…

    On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.

    Aspartame had been banned because it is a dangerous chemical.

    Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. According to the top doctors and researchers on this issue, aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue and depression. Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. How’s that Diet Coke treating you now?

    Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame
    By Robbie Gennet

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. AaronB says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I’d like to discuss it with you, but we’re not gonna get anywhere. You’re gonna ask me to provide evidence for what I regard as baseline assumptions.

    To me, it’s indisputable that most people ate mostly grains and were too poor to eat much meat since the advent of agriculture. Most countries with a bit if tradition left that I’ve been to eat like this. Meat only became cheap recently.

    Discussions are useful only where there is a minimum of shared assumptions and then you argue about some conclusions. But if you’re gonna ask me to reinvent the wheel each time I make a claim we won’t get very far.

    To be fair, I don’t think a high meat diet is bad for you. I think it’s all fine. Just eat less. And probably avoid big American corporations. They are not to be trusted.

    Aside from that, I think we should focus on intangibles like culture and values. I think we are getting increasingly less mileage out of our materialism and it will all come crashing down soon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Alden says:
    @Sparkon

    Even though I live alone part of the year I cook everything from scratch including soup, gravy, and sauces. I do buy mayonnaise but if they start adding sugar and weird tasting chemicals I’ll start making my own

    Sugar is in everything. What I can’t stand about the added sugar is that it just doesn’t belong in a lot of things, like tomato soup. It’s gotten to the point that I find it hard to eat in restaurants because so much of the food just tastes strange.

    Corn in its natural state is a high sugar grain. American pioneers on the frontier invented corn syrup by boiling down the cobs. But in the last 30 years the corn farmers have bred more and more sugar into corn.

    Read the labels on any kind of tomato sauce or cannned whole tomatoes. There is usually added sugar. So you have to add pepper, salt , vinegar or red wine to counter the weird sugar taste.

    Any kind of bottled salad dressing, gross. That’s why fish meat and eggs are goood if you want to eat food that doesn t have a lot of weird tasting stuff added to it.

    I see the weight watchers ads on tv. It’s all weight watchers brand frozen food consisting of carbs carbs carbs. But the people in the ads are all fat.

    The original weight watchers diet was mostly eggs, fish and low calorie vegetables. I’ve heard it worked.

    I couldn’t eat the last container of tomato soup I bought. And I was really hungry too. After the first couple spoonfuls I had to check the label. And the first ingredient was not tomato but sugar. No wonder it tasted so awful

    I even have to make onion soup nowadays because the even the Lipton and canned kinds taste so weird and nasty.

    I still make rice aroni for the kids. It’s pretty good, tastes like it always did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems from the smoke and particulates floating around. Also those primitive countries that use cook fires destroy the ozone layer.

    The respiratory and eye problems are obvious. Ozone layer who knows.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They would have had to do that to get the benefits. Lots of people spread wood ashes on their gardens as it’s conventional gardening wisdom that it’s helpful.

    So many studies, so little time to verify them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Alden says:
    @Sparkon

    I wonder if that study was done by the cane and beet sugar farmers of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    No it doesn’t.

    That mineral deficiency is unrelated to obesisty?

    believe what you like, but the literature suggests otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Adrian says:
    @anon

    The food isn’t the only issue in the USA. Most British people find American portion sizes repulsive. There’s enough on a plate to feed two people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    But burning wood causes respiratory diseases and eye problems …

    Depends how you burn it. But in any case, I’m not recommending it. Burning wood for the ashes is surely not the most economic way of remedying mineral depletion of agricultural soil. Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    Did farmers ever spread wood ashes on their fields?

    They surely would not have had enough. But many undoubtedly use ashes on their kitchen garden, as I do. The added potash is particularly useful if you are using chicken manure, since that is relatively low in potassium. In addition, wood ash will contain micronutrients from undepleted forest soils.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This is interesting:

    Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium

    It suggests a way that utu could become not only smarter than he already is, but more civil than a polecat with a tooth ache.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Bush administration and the CIA working for big agricultural declared a war on American’s perception of gluten: “Bread and pasta are evil – death, alzheimers, allergies, inflammation, seizures, war, terrorism, those goddamn French and a deep state conspiracy by the lords of sugar”

    American men had dust covered prints of Atkins on their nightstands. They filled their freezers with meat. Meat bravado with some sadness over pizza. But “I lost some weight!”

    The succesful propaganda would extend to routine restaurant visits: sandwiches without the bread, soups without noodles, a tube of pepperoni in the dash of every SUV. ‘Gotta suffer to be good – gotta pay my meat dues to get in shape. All the meat I can eat. This is what it takes’

    The American meat system depends upon big oil. Blowing up Iraq was just a related business decision. Corn fields dedicated to ethanol or meat. Frito Lay coast to coast. There’s never enough bombs to secure this paradise, there aren’t enough pills, there isn’t enough Complan to replace Coca-Cola.

    “If you’re fat, poor, in debt, or in my way – it’s another IQ test”

    Test us, we’re ready to obey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  195. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Take this example. Someone has a TDEE of 2200 kcal. They want to lose weight so drop to 1800 kcal. They lose weight then stall. Kcal gets decreased more and more. However, the body matches its metabolism to calories coming in. What happens then?

    You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is “reasonable.” If the desired weight is “unreasonable” you may die in the process.

    If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.

    Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean? Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That’s why they are called laws. The first says you can’t get something from nothing and the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something. But anyway, invoking the two laws when talking about weight gains and losses is a pure sign of provincial pretentiousness and/or a con job on people who are susceptible to pretense.

    You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt’s dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I’ve already shown the fallacious logic behind assuming that the first law is relevant to human physiology.

    Great, so we do not need to eat at all. Energy is spontaneously generated from nano black holes located somewhere around human anus. Nobody will ever starve to death because you have shown the fallacy of the logic that one needs to eat. The greatest benefactor of humanity who liberated humanity from the awful burden of eating by the power of his logic!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    All American farmers who have animals have manure spreaders to fertilize the fields.

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Asians do use untreated human waste to fertilize their fields. That’s why Asia is full of hepatitis, worms and numerous GI diseases caused by human fecal matter in the food they eat.

    I’ve never heard of a method of burning wood that does not result in smoke and ashes and grit floating around.

    The environmentalists blame destruction of the ozone layer over Africa and Indonesia and India on millions s of people cooking over open wood fire.

    I doubt that the average African woman cooking over her open wood fire knows the special way of burning wood that eliminates smoke and grit. In many countries the y use dried animal manure for cook and heating fires. Think about that smoke abs ash

    You really should post about what you know. Anyone who is aware of the Asian habit of using human waste as fertilizer for vegetables is aware of the numerous diseases caused by this.

    I’m sure Wikipedia has articles about how American sewer systems sanitize human waste before returning it to the earth and water. Learn a bit about sewer systems before you assert that American sewer systems dump untreated human waste into the water.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Alden says:
    @utu

    Speaking of pseudo scientific BS

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Chicken manure is the A+++++ of manure. I think it’s the nitrogen.
    Southerners used to have a fence around the vegetable garden to keep the chickens and other critters out in the summer.

    But in fall, after everything was picked, they would herd the chickens into the fenced in garden every morning and feed them there.

    The chickens would spend the day pooping away and the garden would be fertilized without having to shovel up the manure and haul it to the garden.

    Another great idea is to put the chickens in the orchard in spring and summer when the garden is off limits. You get the best fruit tree fertilizer without any work or spending any money.

    I won’t totally repulse the vegetarians by telling them why beef feed lots are often combined with chicken farms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @RaceRealist88

    Thank you! I shall now pay more systematic attention to your UR comments – and hold you to.stringent standards :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @RaceRealist88

    And, if it isn’t seeking to encroach too far on Internet privacy tell me if I guess right about Afrosapiens with whom my civil exchanges include apparent agreement that the vast still underexplored genetic variety in Africa makes a lot of what has been said about Africans’ inherited attributes premature at best. I guess/infer that Afrosapiens is male and of sufficent African ancestry to pass as black (if not a sanctified PoC :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    Human waste does not pollute waters in America. It’s carefully treated in the sewer plants before it’s returned to the water. That’s why Americans can swim in our lakes.

    Oh yeah?

    Human and animal waste, among other sewage overflow, contaminate the beachwaters of virtually every sandy retreat in the country*.

    There were over 20,000 closing and advisory days last year at ocean, bay and Great Lake beaches because of high levels of bacteria and pollutants in the waters, according to the annual beachwater quality report – Testing The Waters – released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

    *The US of A, that is.

    Alden, you should try taking your own advice:

    You really should post about what you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    This is a vaguely interesting but largely unfocused discussion in response to an article of quite obscure purpose, unless it is to sell us a diet. However, it has provoked some comments about diet and mental function, which is a subject of undoubted importance. In that connection, this paper is interesting:

    The Effect of Vitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Juvenile Delinquincy Among American Schoolchildren: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

    Somewhat similar studies have been undertaken in gaols, in the UK and elsewhere, the UK studies by Gesch et al. They found that vitamin and mineral supplements reduced prison violence and, if taken after release from gaol, reduced the recidivism rate. In connection with such studies, it would be interesting to see before and after tests of cognitive capacity.

    It could well be that the toxic fat and sugar-laden cheap calorie diet that Westerners increasingly consume may account for the end of the Flynn-effect driven rise in IQ, and will in future drive a physiologically based decline in mental competence.

    But more evidence is needed. In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Alden

    Ummm by the time carbs, any carbs including fruits and vegetables get through the GI tract into the blood steam they are one and all turned into glucose.

    No. They are a mixture of maltose, glucose, fructose, and galactose when they are absorbed into the blood.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Carbohydrate_digestion

    Glucose is glucose, whether it enters the mouth as plain white or brown sugar, a cheap or expensive candy bar, or an organic pesticide free raised vegetable or whole grain bread from a health food store.

    Sugar is sucrose which is digested into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. A candy bar is mostly fat, and American bread contains sugar. All of these things matter.

    Take a physiology course.

    I did, along with biochemistry and biology. Because of genetic diversity, we each have different food intolerances. Those intolerances are what caused my diabetes. But my diet probably will not cure your diabetes. Vegan works for some, low-carb works for many, Mediterannean for others. I have to avoid fructose and galactose.

    The only diet that will cure everyone is starvation, and that has uh, unpleasant side effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    By the time it gets into the blood stream it’s all glucose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Alden says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    One of the more ridiculous things about all this inane diet advice and obsession is that the diet gurus and even medical people make no distinction between

    1 diabetes both child and adult onset
    2 obesity including morbid obesity
    3 various degrees of chubby ness

    Diabetes is a disease and is absolutely totally different from obesity and overweight.

    But the diet gurus have the naive and gullible population convinced that overweight leads to diabetes.

    If you have diabetes I’m sure you know that diabetics 1 & 2 are supposed to follow a high protein high fat low carb diet.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Bacteria in the water is quite quite different from your allegation that Americans just flush human waste into the lakes rivers and beaches.

    Bacteria is quite different from huge human manure piles floating in the waters off Calcutta and other turd world countries. Many African beaches are just toilets.

    More importantly, in America, the water is continually tested and when the Bactria level is too high the beaches are closed until the water is safe again.

    Why not stick to the topic of the article which is diet fads?

    You are just a crank who claims that America doesn’t have sewer systems.
    Go to some turd world country, and eat some raw vegetables.

    You will spend the rest of your life in desperate need of the sewer system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Alden says:
    @RaceRealist88

    So this study shows that carbs cause obesity ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    There was work on nutrition and delinquency decades ago which has continued, but has never really become popular to the degree I think it should be. Here is an example: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=70045
    I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer.

    Here is a survey book on the topic from 1978: https://www.amazon.com/Ecologic-Biochemical-Approaches-Treatment-Delinquents-Criminals/dp/0442234201
    Should have a host of paper references if you prefer the research literature.

    Regarding this:

    In the meantime, the example of New York state in taxing sweetened soda drinks should be followed by other jurisdictions and greatly broadened, for example with a tax on sugar, equal to maybe 500% of the wholesale price. That would stop food processors adding the stuff to everything just because it is cheap.

    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    I was a dedicated runner for 35 years, and yet I became severely overweight in spite of huge amounts of exercise

    You just ate too much for your exercise level.

    If you want to lose weight the necessary condition must be fulfilled:

    Energy_Spent≥Energy_Absorbed

    I hope your exorbitant IQ does not prevent you form understanding this inequality.

    *Sigh* Of course I know that. But there’s something that you clearly do NOT know: there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, and, if you artificially try to force yourself to just eat less, you will end up spending every waking moment in agonizing hunger pangs.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied. If you have hyperinsulinemia/metabolic syndrome/”famine genetics”, then, your “satisfied” point is likely to be just a little bit over your actual caloric needs, and you’ll slowly but steadily gain weight — despite an incredibly intense exercise regimen. I worked harder at fitness than almost anyone else i know; if conventional wisdom were true, I should never have had a weight problem.

    The great secret of low-carb/high-fat or “ketogenic” eating, is that it’s the only diet that gets you off the hyperinsulinemia roller-coaster and thereby shuts off the hunger pangs. Which means you end up eating less without trying, without being agonizingly hungry.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    What you don’t know is that the local health departments continually test waters, especially in the summer.

    Actually, I did know that, and I was aware also that local health departments find much of the water they test contaminated with sewage, due to 23,000 to 75,000 sanitary-sewer overflows that happen every year (according to the EPA), like last winter’s 30 million-gallon-spill of raw sewage into Puget Sound from Washington State’s largest sewage plant.

    As for dumping sewage on farm land, there are obviously health risks, although over many generations of exposure to such risk Asian populations have gained considerable immunity to the hazard. so I stand by what I originally said:

    Asians have traditionally recycled shit to maintain the fertility of their agricultural land, which makes good sense, whereas we just flush it away thereby polluting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters.

    In fact, now, Asian are turning away from the traditional method of recycling human waste, instead flushing it just like Americans, thus contaminating waterways with nitrates, phosphates and potassium, plus residues of a thousand drugs, legal and otherwise, that can cause fish to turn hermaphrodite and perhaps also explains the abrupt emergence of the transgender movement. And that’s when things are working properly, rather than the tens of thousand of times a year that American sewage systems flood waterways, lakes, and coastal waters with diluted untreated sewage.

    It will, I believe, come to be seen in a future age as one of the greatest stupidities of the 20th and 21st century to flush shit into a sewer where it mixes with hundreds of times its own volume of other waste water, often the latter contaminated with oil or industrial pollutants, and then at vast expense, attempt to clean it up, before throwing away the nutrient constituents, in the process causing eutrophication of lakes and rivers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Thank you for the refs. on nutrition and delinquency.

    Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.

    Yes. How about requiring airlines, bus lines, taxis etc. to charge passengers by the pound. That would give people an incentive to watch what they eat. Or maybe products containing sugar and other bad things should carry health warnings: “This product may make you fat, dopey, delinquent,” or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. JayMay, James Thompson’s fellow blogger here on the Unz Review, has a scientific resource page on obesity here:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/obesity-facts/

    It’s divided into the follow sectionss:

    - Individual-level heritability of obesity
    - Group-level heritability of obesity
    - Ineffectiveness of obesity treatments
    - Laboratory/surgical interventions
    - Overstated impact of obesity per se on health

    Some highlights:

    “Obesity is known to be highly heritable.”

    “Finally, there is a marked misconception that there is some sort of ‘debate’ about whether body weight is genetic (which it heavily is) or stems from ‘choices’ (i.e., behavior). This is one of those things that’s not even wrong. There can be no dichotomy between ‘genes’ and ‘choice.’ As HBD Chick would put it, where do choices come from? As readers of this blog know, the First Law of behavioral genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable. Genes (i.e., specifically, genetic differences) impact all human behavior (i.e., behavioral differences) to some degree. Indeed, often considerably so. More fundamentally, the phony dichotomy between genes and choice stems from a key misunderstanding: the failure to realize that the universe is deterministic. All events, including human behaviors, have causes….”

    “In the case of diets, particularly the most common low-fat and low-calorie diets, a very large meta-analysis of RCTs with a combined N > 60,000 (of which ~48,000 came from a single mammoth trial) and a study duration of 2.5 – 10 years, found that diet was completely ineffective for weight loss. The subjects showed no aggregate permanent weight loss at the end of the study period. The largest of these studies, the one by Howard et al (2006) found little change, a total loss (over 3 years) of less than 1 kg (and a difference between control and treatment groups of 1.29 kg, favoring treatment).

    “As for diet and exercise combined, several studies in both previous meta-analyses look at trials which tested both together. The result was the same: little to no significant aggregate weight loss, especially after longer periods of time.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    It’s not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    There are many things (factors and conditions) possibly related to obesity, but what is cause, and what is effect?

    Obesity affects the entire body so we should not be surprised that its organs and glands may not be functioning properly. I think James Thompson may have touched on this point himself at the top of his article.

    I looked at your long list of links, what you call “the literature.” I saw no claim that mineral deficiencies began to rise when obesity did, but rather I noted most of these articles focused on the simple observation that obese people have mineral deficiencies. Big surprise. Obese people eat poorly, and their bodies are not functioning optimally, but without some data showing that mineral deficiencies among the general population increased at the same time and rate as obesity did, there is no sustainable argument for a cause and effect relationship between the two.

    By contrast, there is excellent temporal correlation between the increasing use of artificial sweeteners and increasing rates of obesity, especially after the approval and introduction of aspartame, as detailed in my previous comment. Here, a mechanism for the obese outcome is suggested:

    It may sound like a healthy switch, but sometimes people who drink diet soft drinks put on more weight and develop chronic disorders like diabetes. This has puzzled nutritionists, but experiments in mice now suggest that in some cases, this could partly be down to the artificial sweetener aspartame.

    Artificial sweeteners that contain no calories are synthetic alternatives to sugar that can taste up to 20,000 times sweeter. They are often used in products like low or zero-calorie drinks and sugar-free desserts, and are sometimes recommended for people who have type 2 diabetes.

    But mouse experiments now suggest that when aspartame breaks down in the gut, it may disrupt processes that are vital for neutralising harmful toxins from the bacteria that live there. By interfering with a crucial enzyme, these toxins seem to build up, irritating the gut lining and causing the kinds of low-level inflammation that can ultimately cause chronic diseases.

    “Our results are providing a mechanism for why aspartame may not always work to keep people thin, or even cause problems like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome,” says Richard Hodin at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114043-why-diet-drinks-with-aspartame-may-actually-help-make-you-fatter/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Alden

    I don’t have diabetes and I’m not even chubby, I’m normal thin.

    So you have no personal experience dealing with diabetes. You just know that doctors have it right, and the standard high protein low carb diet works for everyone. If doctors knew what caused diabetes, we would not have an epidemic of it.

    The latest nonsense is that everyone is
    Pre adult onset diabetic and must follow the latest diet, a diet that often contradicts the standard high protein, high fat low carb diet that is supposed for diabetics

    I guess you disagree, but my point is that there is no one diet that will reverse diabetes for everyone: neither standard nor fad. We are all different, and we metabolize nutrients in slightly different ways. That is why we have so many contradictory diets.

    What I did was use my meter and rotate my diet to find that dairy products and fructose containing foods were contributing to my diabetes. I also took Igg blood allergy tests, and cutting out foods I was allergic to helped. I don’t need the drugs and insulin my doctor wanted me to take. I eat lots of potatoes.

    It takes some intelligence and strength of character to ignore those who insist they know what I should eat. Food allergies and careful weaning have gone out of fashion. It is amazing how much hostility comes out when I say milk and honey make me ill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    there’s a biochemical reason why you eat the amount that you do, a

    This is an unscientific assumption. There may be cultural reasons why you eat the amount you do.

    Hindu ascetics eat very little.

    Nobody can do this forever; sooner or later absolutely everyone eventually breaks down and eats enough to be satisfied.

    Untrue. Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    People in Japan say they eat less because their culture values being thin and not stuffing your face.

    If there’s a good enough reason to stay thin, we’ll find the motivation to do so. Our culture doesn’t give us a good enough reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    Ascetics down the ages have controlled their urge to eat.

    Ha! So there’s the answer to America’s obesity epidemic, everybody to be an ascetic.

    And it’s evidently time for the Japanese to rededicate themselves to asceticism:

    Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

    Actually, as anonymous explains to those with brains to grasp an explanation, the only asceticism most fat folks need is to stuff their faces with the right food, not the toxic crap that most Americans eat in seemingly vast quantities to judge by restaurant meal portions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    It’s not what I believe, but rather what the data show.

    But not what the data I showed show!

    And I didn’t say that mineral deficiency caused obesity, I said it was related to obesity, which as the literature shows, it is.

    but in fact we seem to be in agreement that diet is the chief determinant of obesity. At one time Europeans and Americans were mostly small and thin, like most Japanese are today, whereas now they are mostly large and fat, as the Japanese are now becoming as they adopt a Westernized diet.

    Obviously there something seriously wrong with the way Westerners eat, and are encouraged to eat, by their corporate masters, a tendency in no way combated by their vastly expensive educational system, with its vast university campuses with their numerous restaurants and cafeterias serving mostly high calorie, low mineral and vitamin content junk food.

    But on the plus side, obesity has risen with national mean IQ. So who’s to say that fat does not make for better brains.

    But not so, apparently:

    The greater your weight, the lower your IQ, say scientists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes. If so, it’s once again a cultural change, and not about the composition of food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @anonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    A little but of asceticism is healthy for body and soul. Trust me on that.

    I look forward to the news from Mar a Largo, when President Trump, chocolate cake in hand, announces the dedication of the nation to austerity and asceticism.

    As for trusting you, you say:

    The first paragraph of that article on Japan says they are ordering larger sizes

    which does not represent the main thrust of the article, which states:

    The fact is that despite the stereotypical view of the Japanese subsisting on fish and rice and miso soup, the national diet is no longer as healthy as it was.

    and

    According to Gozoh Tsujimoto, director of the Drug Discovery Research Center at Kyoto University, there is a straightforward explanation for the expansion of waistlines in Japan: Westernization.

    “Lifestyle factors have become Westernized,” he told me in an email interview. “Especially, food has become Westernized — and mainly high-calorie and high fat.”

    Trust must be earned. It cannot be commanded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    You’re joking, but a little bit of asceticism is a part of traditional societies.

    Traditional societies are spiritual and had lots of fast days and days where you didn’t eat certain foods like meat. and in general you weren’t expected to stuff yourself.

    So yea it’s not crazy to say that we should have a culture of self restraint and asceticism.

    *Sigh* I engaged in religiously motivated fasting during my “fat” years, and it didn’t help with my weight issues in the least. An occasional fast day is good for your immune system & a few other things but as a weight control strategy it’s foolishness. I still occasionally fast, but what makes or breaks my weight control strategy is what I eat on the days I’m NOT fasting. Which should seemingly be quite obvious.

    Cutting way back on carbs and increasing natural fats (olive oil, grassfed butter, etc), allows me to eat to true satisfaction while controlling my weight and still having enough energy to do my job, chase 3 kids around, and work out regularly. Tonight’s dinner is pork chops and ratatouille, with red wine, almonds, and cheese for dessert. What kind of junk are YOU eating?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    Right, I simply meant that we need a national culture of mild asceticism based on traditional values.

    If you just include fast days in an otherwise indulgent Western lifestyle you won’t accomplish much.

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure. What ever you eat, it’s going to be a pleasure. Steaks are delicious, and bagels are delicious.

    We humans need a good reason to not overindulge in pleasure, any kind of pleasure.

    Really, the “it’s what you eat” theory ignores the psychology of pleasure. “Satiety” is the wrong goal. People eat past satiety for pleasure.

    I just did that an hour ago – I ate an enormous delicious meal, way past feeling full. Even if I was eating foods that made me feel full, I chose to eat way past that, for pure pleasure, since it’s the weekend and I was among friends. In fact I feel uncomfortable now.

    It’s fundamentally misconcieved to think that humans eat primarily for hunger. We eat primarily for pleasure.

    So, the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology.

    That theory treats humans too much as efficient machines – we need fuel to function, so if we eat beyond that, we must not realize we have enough fuel to function. In other words we must still be “hungry”.

    But humans crave pleasure, and will eat way past feeling full. So aiming for that “full” feeling misses the point.

    Do you get what I’m saying?

    It doesn’t matter if we eat the right foods that will make us feel satisfied. We don’t eat to feel satisfied. We eat to maximize pleasure.

    Stopping to eat when you feel full would itself be the result if culture.

    We would gave to have a culture that encourages people to be content with being satisfied. But we have a maximizing culture.

    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating.

    In fact, people turn to food as one of the few pleasures available in a generally unsatisfying culture.

    Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    If you don’t want to overindulge in pleasure, you need a different pleasure that opposes it. And the only pleasures that can oppose physical pleasures are mental pleasures, culture, values, etc.

    And this analysis applies to port addiction, drinking too much.

    But one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety.

    Make sense?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    What we are fighting against is pleasure. Food is a pleasure.

    A higher authority disagrees with you:

    You make known to me the path of life;
    You will fill me with joy in Your presence,
    with eternal pleasures at Your right hand.
    Psalm 16:11

    the “right foods producing satiety” theory is basically flawed in its psychology..t one thing seems clear to me – this needs to be approached through the psychology of pleasure, and not the psychology of hunger or satiety

    However it is perfectly in accord with biochemistry, which I actually know something about. I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger. I lost this weight and revitalized my health without resorting to any psychology whatsoever.

    Our materialistic culture doesn’t give us strong reasons not to overindulge in the pleasure of eating…Where these strong reasons exist, like among Hollywood actors, or among snobbish coastal elites, the majority stays thin.

    They’re all on drugs. Or they’re low-carbing, like me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    I remind you, 55 lbs melted away without hunger, and I feel 20 years younger

    .

    You didn’t, unfortunately, undersrand what I said.

    When your hunger died down, what made you not continue eating for the pure pleasure of it? Why did you stop just at the point where you no longer felt hungry?

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    So unfortunately, your comment missed the point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    Low carb diets may kill hunger – but they don’t kill pleasure.

    Thanks be to God.

    Agreed. Physical pleasure is good. But it must be moderated I favor of higher pleasures.

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.

    But most people do. And thus a low carb diet, even if it reduces hunger, won’t cure our overweight epidemic.

    By your own theory, your not overeating for pleasure can have little to do with a low carb diet, as you claim only that such a diet reduces hunger, but does not eliminate the pleasure of eating.

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @AaronB

    Religious fasters do not usually have to hold down a job and socialize with co-workers. They usually have some form of social support.

    Medieval Lenten fasts worked because it is not a busy time of year on the farm (and a time to control consumption to avoid Spring famine). In Malaysia, during Ramadan, grocery sales double. If you need to concentrate hard on your work, you cannot spend your life feeling hungry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    So low carb diets, or any diet that focuses on satiety, miss the point, by your own example.

    No, it is you who has entirely missed the point.

    Perhaps you are a rare psychological overeater (if such a thing exists at all) but most people who overeat, do so because of biochemistry gone awry due to modern diets. Fix the biochemistry, and you can eat with pleasure and satiety without overeating. It’s just that simple… and…. drum roll….

    IT. WORKED. FOR. ME.

    ….and many, many others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. AaronB says:
    @Philip Owen

    The Japanese work pretty hard, and remain thin. What’s useful.about looking at the whole world rather than just our little corner of it is that we can better test our theories.

    Also, I’m not really talking about fasts per se, just a general principle of moderation in our culture. Plus, I think we’re overeating for pleasure.

    But you’re right, we need a support system. Man can do wonders with the right motivation. If our entire society supported a culture of ascetic moderation, and focused less on material enjoyments, we’d be able to keep our weight down. We’d turn to other things for pleasure.

    Obsessing over carbs and protein just exacerbates the fundamental peoblem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @utu

    “You stop the process of reducing calories intake once you achieve the desired weight. Which you will as long a the desired weight is “reasonable.” If the desired weight is “unreasonable” you may die in the process.”

    What about metabolic slowdown *adaptive thermogenesis)? How does that come into your math (in-out) regarding human weight loss?

    “If you do not believe it then you also do not believe in anorexia outcomes. Share you good news with anorexics that their dieting is pointless as they will not lose weight because their metabolism will compensate and the weight loss will stall.”

    They have extremely low metabolisms due to extreme ‘dieting’. Ancel Keys’s ‘starvation experiments’ showed this. An anorexia website came across one of my articles on CI/CO saying that ‘they don’t have any metabolisms’, actually. It was pretty funny and shows that they didn’t understand what I wrote.

    There is also a difference between not eating/eating very little and accepting the modern dietary dogma of ‘a calorie being a calorie’ and thinking that you’d lose the same amount of weight on 66 percent carbs and 66 percent fat while having the same compliance. That’s something that the math doesn’t do. Trust me, I re-do my diet every few months and I do stay in deficits while dieting for fat loss, but I’m not the average person on the verge of insulin resistance due to a shitty diet. That’s the difference.

    “Obviously ∆Weight/∆Calories is not a constant. It is a complex function that depend on all kinds of parameters. One think however is certain that if ∆Calories<0 then ∆Weight≤0 in other words you will not be gaining weight if you start dropping calories providing that all other parameters remain constant."

    You can control the in, but not the out. The out is more complex and since both variables not independent of one another, changing the in also changes the out, meaning that eventually your body's metabolism matches the out to the in, effectively stopping weight loss (following the caloric reduction as primary model, that all kcal are the same once ingested in the body no matter the source they came from).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @utu

    “Do you understand what this ‘a calorie is a calorie’ is supposed to mean?”

    Of course I understand what it means, what does it mean to you?

    “Because as far as I can see it is just a slogan of some pseudo-scietific charlatan who like to dress up his BS with some scientific terminology like invoking I and II law of thermodynamics. Guess what, both of these laws work and apply. That’s why they are called laws. The first says you can’t get something from nothing”

    And Fung’s example showed how the First Law is irrelevant. It only restates that if one eats more then they gain weight. No causal information is given.

    “the second says that if you want to get something from another thing the another thing must be larger than the something”

    And I’m talking about the ‘calorie is a calorie’ mantra. If you state that then you’re violating the Second Law as seen in Feinman and Fine (2004).

    “You seem to be a sucker for BS particularly when it provides you an opportunity preaching seemingly controversial and contrarian ideas. As I said before it is fine and perhaps amusing at your aunt’s dinner party once a year at her birthday but in a long run you should try to get real.”

    It’s also amusing in discussions on weight loss, too. Because 1) the human body is not a bomb calirometer and 2) the out matches with the in over time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @utu

    “Great, so we do not need to eat at all. Energy is spontaneously generated from nano black holes located somewhere around human anus. Nobody will ever starve to death because you have shown the fallacy of the logic that one needs to eat. The greatest benefactor of humanity who liberated humanity from the awful burden of eating by the power of his logic!”

    No one claimed this. Again:

    Notice once again, that the First Law of Thermodynamics is not being broken. There are no calories created out of thin air. It is simply irrelevant to human physiology. I studied biochemistry in university and took a full year course on thermodynamics. At no point did we ever discuss the human body or weight gain/ loss. Because it has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If anybody mentions the ‘first law of thermodynamics’ regarding weight loss, you, too will know that they are just not very smart. Or maybe they just haven’t really thought about what thermodynamics actually is.

    The lunatics are running the asylum – and they all believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics. In discussing the physiology of obesity, the First Law of Thermodynamics is not wrong – it’s irrelevant.

    https://idmprogram.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Alden

    “So this study shows that carbs cause obesity ?”

    It shows that insulin causes weight gain, like precedes it. But here are Stephen Guyenet’s thoughts on the study:

    http://www.stephanguyenet.com/interesting-new-genetic-study-on-insulin-secretion-and-body-mass/

    This is a good debate with very smart people on both sides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @res

    “I have a number of books on this topic. Some authors to look for are Abram Hoffer and Carl Pfeiffer.”

    What are the best ones you have?

    “Be careful what you ask for. The likely immediate outcome of a measure like that would be a large increase in the use of artificial sweeteners.”

    I was so for this a few years back. I saw all of these trucks in NYC at the time with ads against it. Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if Big Soda was behind those ads. They sweat every time somewhere brings up a sugar tax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @anonymous

    Co-signed. The funny thing about utu is that he’s only stating the math “If you eat X, then Y”, but human physiology is more complex then the supposed number of kcal you are consuming. The human body is not a bomb calirometer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @CanSpeccy

    “Yes. How about requiring airlines, bus lines, taxis etc. to charge passengers by the pound. That would give people an incentive to watch what they eat. Or maybe products containing sugar and other bad things should carry health warnings: “This product may make you fat, dopey, delinquent,” or whatever.”‘

    Most would see that as fat shaming, which makes the problem worse and causes obesity and more weight gain due to biochemical stress.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/06/science-proves-it-fat-shaming-doesnt-work/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/19/fat-shaming-and-weight-regain/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @Stephen Marle II

    Read my responses to JayMan on dieting. He seems to believe that if he reads a few papers and cites them then that’s it, dieting or watching what you eat has no utility.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/08/05/diet-and-exercise-dont-do-it-part-ii/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/diet-and-exercise-dont-do-it/

    ““Obesity is known to be highly heritable.””

    What does this mean?

    “As HBD Chick would put it, where do choices come from?”

    Where do they come from?

    “More fundamentally, the phony dichotomy between genes and choice stems from a key misunderstanding: the failure to realize that the universe is deterministic. All events, including human behaviors, have causes….”

    This is funny. The true false dichotomy is between nature/nurture, genes/environment (which he’s siding with genes on).

    http://www.academia.edu/791831/The_nurturing_of_natures

    https://cissct.duke.edu/books/ontogeny-information-developmental-systems-and-evolution

    ““In the case of diets, particularly the most common low-fat and low-calorie diets, a very large meta-analysis of RCTs with a combined N > 60,000 (of which ~48,000 came from a single mammoth trial) and a study duration of 2.5 – 10 years, found that diet was completely ineffective for weight loss. The subjects showed no aggregate permanent weight loss at the end of the study period. The largest of these studies, the one by Howard et al (2006) found little change, a total loss (over 3 years) of less than 1 kg (and a difference between control and treatment groups of 1.29 kg, favoring treatment).”

    This is the paper:

    http://dishlab.org/pubs/2013%20Compass.pdf

    Even a 10 percent weight reduction (which is what is termed a ‘success’ from Wing and Hill, 2001) greatly improves health outcomes. I’ve read all of Mann’s work and her book, and JayMan literally just cherry-picks things for his pre-formed conclusions.

    Most people don’t eat enough protein, and people who eat more protein have lower BP, for instance.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25194158

    ““As for diet and exercise combined, several studies in both previous meta-analyses look at trials which tested both together. The result was the same: little to no significant aggregate weight loss, especially after longer periods of time.””

    I agree that dieting for the long term (using traditional methods, CI/CO) doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that other methods (low carb combined with intermittent fasting) do not work. I recommend reading Jason Fung here, because JayMan is out of his league here, cherry-picking studies to help the conclusions he has already come to.

    https://idmprogram.com/

    One last point, one of his main citations, the Look AHEAD study doesn’t even say what he wants it to, largely that dieting and exercise is useless for diabetics:

    The intervention aimed at weight loss by reducing fat calories, and using meal replacements and, eventually, orlistat, likely underemphasizing dietary composition. There is suggestive evidence, in fact, that qualitative changes in dietary composition aiming at higher consumption of foods rich in fiber and with a high vegetable/animal fat ratio favorably influence CV risk in T2D patients.

    In conclusion, the Look AHEAD showed substantial health benefits of lifestyle modifications. Prevention of CV events may need higher attention to dietary composition, contributing to stricter control of CV risk factors. As a better health-related quality of life in people with diabetes is an important driver of our clinical decisions, efforts on early implementation of behavioral changes through a multifactorial approach are strongly justified.

    http://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(13)00303-7/fulltext

    Though if you’re only picking cherries, you’ll completely miss papers like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @CanSpeccy

    “The greater your weight, the lower your IQ, say scientists.”

    Causation could be not educated on what to eat/buy > obesity, not that low IQ ’causes’ obesity on its own.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy, JL
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    And people overeat for pleasure.

    I don’t.

    But most people do.

    What you say is logically incoherent. Most people do not “overeat for pleasure” because most people do not overeat if, as it appears, you mean by overeating eating to the point of becoming obese. And if that is not your criterion of overeating, how can you tell if someone has overeaten? You have, it seems, no way of knowing.

    The fact is, the satisfaction of all appetites and most bodily functions is a pleasure. When short of oxygen, we breath for pleasure. When thirsty we drink with pleasure. Even the pain of giving birth, is said to be followed by the experience of euphoria. It would be absurd to advocate restraint in peeing because, with a full bladder, it is a pleasure to pee. Equally, it seems absurd to advocate restraint of eating because eating is a pleasure. In fact, the pleasure of eating is a key factor in family and group bonding, and thus a vital aspect of social cohesion.

    The question at issue is why some people eating ad lib gain weight to the point of obesity, whereas others do not. And further why obesity rises or falls with changes in diet. The answer to those questions is far from clear, although it appears that factors regulating blood sugar concentration are involved, as are other biochemical signals.

    By making obesity a moral issue, you obscure important empirical questions concerning the way in which the composition of diet determines whether satiation occurs before or after the intake of calories exceeds calorific expenditure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    The Japanese work pretty hard, and remain thin.

    They don’t all remain thin. As indicated in quotes and a link provided above, the Japanese diet is being Westernized and the incidence of obesity in Japan is on the rise.

    e.g., from Wikipedia:

    Japan
    Using the WHO criteria Japan has the lowest rate of obesity among the OECD member countries at 3.2%.[23][24] However, as Asian populations are particularly susceptible to the health risks of excess adipose tissue the Japanese have redefined obesity as any BMI greater than 25.[25] Using this cut off value the prevalence of obesity in Japan would be 20%, a threefold increase from 1962 to 2002.[26] A 2008 report stated that 28.6% of men and 20.6% of women in Japan were considered to be obese

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    Ok, so this reply is to the point.

    If you deny that people overeat for pleasure, then that’s where we disagree.

    Yes, if people only overeat for hunger, then you are correct. Any diet that reduces feelings of hunger would work. Assuming the composition of our food has a dramatuc impact on hunger, which I doubt.

    But if most people overeat
    for pleasure and boredom, then such diets entirely miss the point.

    Everyone must judge for themselves the plausibility of your contention that it’s rare for people to overeat for pleasure.

    Thank you for this conversation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But on the plus side, obesity has risen with national mean IQ. So who’s to say that fat does not make for better brains.

    Cunnane argues for this proposition seriously. He theorizes that early humans migrated to shore areas where they dug for shellfish. The high fat diet is what allowed us to evolve our bigger brains. One bit of evidence he cites for this is that humans need more iodine than can be found anywhere but near the sea.

    Cunnane, Stephen C. (2005) Survival of the Fattest World Scientific Publishing Co. Singapore. ISBN 981-256-191-9

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    What are the best ones you have?

    I have not dug into them as much as I would like. The Hippchen book I mentioned in that comment is probably a good start. Happily it was close at hand so I pulled it out to take a look. It is a collection of twenty chapters by a variety of authors (including Hippchen, Hoffer, and Pfeiffer). The chapters vary and seem to be between conversational and research paper style in tone. They also vary in the thoroughness with which references are supplied, but the book as a whole has a four page bibliography at the end.

    I like that format for providing an introduction to a topic. It gives a variety of points of view making it possible to follow up on the aspects most agreeable to you.

    Abebooks has two copies for about $5.50 each if you are interested: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=&tn=&kn=+Ecologic-Biochemical+Approaches+to+Treatment+of+Delinquents+and+Criminals&isbn=

    This review gives an idea of how this type of work is typically received: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001112877902500409

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    If you deny that people overeat for pleasure, then that’s where we disagree.

    I affirm that people eat for pleasure. I deny that they overeat for pleasure. They overeat because their biochemistry is tweaked.

    Yes, if people only overeat for hunger, then you are correct. Any diet that reduces feelings of hunger would work.

    Lots of people report that low-carb/high-fat works. To be fair, not everybody…. but, many people.

    Assuming the composition of our food has a dramatuc impact on hunger, which I doubt.

    Here is where biochemistry is overwhelmingly against you. Hunger is strongly or entirely driven by biochemistry, and composition of the food has a huge effect. Blood sugar swings cause rebounding hunger. I won’t waste my evening proving it here — go do your own in-depth reading.

    Psychology, by contrast, has little or no effect on overeating. One of the authors of “The Carbohydrate Addicts Diet”, reports that she was overweight from an early age, and entered a graduate program in psychology determined to learn the psychological causes of overeating. (Yes, like many pshrinks, she went into the field originally to heal herself.) She learned that there was no psychological effect involved in overeating, and eventually settled on a biochemical answer which she wrote into a book. (Atkins is better IMHO, but her book isn’t bad on the science at least.)

    But if most people overeat for pleasure and boredom, then such diets entirely miss the point.

    In which case, we would expect appetite-controlling low-carb/high-fat diets to not work, because they miss the point. But for large numbers of people, they do work. So, clearly they do NOT miss the point!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Causation could be not educated on what to eat/buy > obesity, not that low IQ ’causes’ obesity on its own.

    Since so little is actually known, one can postulate a causal relationship either way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Things are getting confusing. Fat does not make for fatness, or not necessarily, but if their was a reliable supply, fat may have provided the required to support the evolution of a bigger brain. On the other hand, fatness may impair brain function. The first is an effect of availability of calories on human evolution, the second is the effect of excess calories on mental function.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. AaronB says:
    @anonymous

    I can understand your loyalty to this diet if it worked for you. That’s all that matters, in the end.

    Good luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. res says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    One thing to pay attention to is that not all “fats” are created equal. There are a variety of especially important fats (e.g. Omega 3 fatty acids) along with fat soluble vitamins (e.g. vitamin D) which come along for the ride and can become deficient in a very low fat diet. Then there are trans fats…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. res says:
    @AaronB

    Not engaging with

    Assuming the composition of our food has a dramatuc impact on hunger, which I doubt.

    Here is where biochemistry is overwhelmingly against you. Hunger is strongly or entirely driven by biochemistry, and composition of the food has a huge effect. Blood sugar swings cause rebounding hunger. I won’t waste my evening proving it here — go do your own in-depth reading.

    speaks volumes. Dismissing that whole comment without engaging with that very important point, as you did, was lame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. @CanSpeccy

    I will confidently state that I am on the right track. What kind of causality mechanisms could be behind low IQ > obesity? I’m confident that I stated the correct causation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    What kind of causality mechanisms could be behind low IQ > obesity?

    Well, here’s the mechanism proposed by the leader of the study I gave a secondary reference to:

    Dr Maxime Cournot, who headed the study, suggested that hormones secreted from fats could have a damaging effect on cerebral cells, resulting in decreased brain function. “Another explanation could be that since obesity is a widely known cardiovascular risk factor, due to the thickening and hardening of the blood vessels, that the same happens with the arteries in the brain,” said Dr Cournot, an assistant professor in clinical epidemiology at Toulouse University Hospital.

    If you don’t like Dr. Cournot’s ideas, that’s fine with me.

    But here’s a study that shows reduced cerebral blood flow with increased body mass index, so refute that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Yes. I agree.

    And to attempt a summing up:

    People eat until hunger is satiated.

    The hunger satiation set point (HSSP) in the obese is too high, hence caloric intake exceeds output and weight is continually gained.

    The HSSP is modified by diet, and, in particular, it increases with increased consumption of fatty foods, and refined carbohydrates such as dirt cheap sucrose, fructose syrup, lactose, and corn starch.

    Cheap carbohydrates and cheap fatty foods, particularly hamburger and most pork products, plus ice cream and other highly sweetened synthetic deserts containing an addictive combination of both fat and sugar, are staples of the fast food and processed food industries.

    Fast food and processed food have become central to the Western diet.

    A commercially-driven dietary transformation thus underlies the growing Western epidemic of obesity and the increasing frequency of obesity wherever the diet is subject to Western influence, as in Japan.

    In addition, Western populations are generally deficient in magnesium a deficiency that is claimed to impair insulin function, thereby promoting high blood sugar and fat accumulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    It should be understood that the aetiology of neither obesity nor diabetes has been conclusively elucidated, although a role of sugar, a major component of processed and fast foods, has long been suspected. That role is discussed by Gary Taubes in the current issue of the British Medical Journal in the article entitled: What if sugar is worse than just empty calories? The BMJ’s editorial comment on the article, which appears under the heading Could sugar be responsible for the obesity and diabetes epidemics? can be seen here. Key points are:

    Doctors have long suspected sugar is not simply a source of excess calories but a fundamental cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes, writes Taubes. But until recently, fat consumption and total energy balance have dominated the debate about obesity and the nature of a healthy diet. …

    … World Health Organization (WHO) director general Margaret Chan described the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes worldwide as a “slow-motion disaster”.

    … The past decade has seen a renewed interest in the possibility that calorific sweeteners — particularly sugar and high fructose syrups — have major roles in causing obesity and diabetes …

    But Taubes argues that these recommendations target sugar only for its calories rather than as a potential causal agent of disease.

    What if the problem is the sugar itself, he asks? Sugar is metabolised differently than other carb-rich foods and could have deleterious effects on the human body independent of its calorific content.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. AaronB says:
    @res

    Res, if you think it would do any good, I’ll engage.

    I don’t believe hunger is entirely controlled by biochemicgal factors. I think mental factors, ones attitudes, values, situation, affect hunger.

    I am sure you’ve experienced that yourself – say, completely forgotten your hunger if you were doing something fun. Or the scientist intensely focused on solving a problem who forgets to eat for a few days.

    Its like that with all physical feelings. They are all heavily mediated by mentail factors.

    The intense pain of extreme exertion can be completely unfelt by the determined mountain climber.

    That being said, theoretically, biochemistry cannot prove that hunger is driven by biochemicgal factors. It must assume it as an unquestioned foundation if it is to do anything at all, then offer solutions based on that assumption.

    Even if these solutions then work, there are confounding factors. For instance, any artificial restriction of diet may reduce hunger for psychological reasons. Merely telling someone eat a certain way may have a psychological effect.

    The only reason I didn’t answer anonymous is that to me, these things are fairly obvious, and it just indicated how far apart we are on basic assumptions for there to be a useful discussion.

    His comments on psychology also – it seems fairly obvious psychology cannot make such a determination, whether entire cultures can support a value system that leads to thinness, with any kind of rigor.

    Only intelligent guesses and educated analysis of history and annthropogy can shed any light – but his assumption that psychology is a rigorous science that can make that kind of determinatiin with authority just seemed to indicate how widely apart our understanding of the world is.

    Which is fine – but I find that once again I was dealing with the curious limitations of minds that are heavily influenced by materialism and science, and thought discretion the better part of valour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Right, but how much of this is changes in culture and eating habits rather than the composition of food. The Japanese are a foodie culture, like the french . Small amounts of delicious intensely flavorful food is the preferred way of eating. They eat tons of carbs, and a significant amount of meaf, although less than Anglo cultures . Anglo cultures are unique in. meat consumption. But Japan is also a culture of moderation and mild asceticism, whith a national aesthetic that prizes the small and refined, and a high degree of vanity in personal appearance and dress. All of this in stark contrast to America, and seems highly unlikely to be unrelated to their capacity to stay thin.

    The traditional Japanese diet has gone out of style a hundred years ago, and many quintessentially Japanese dishes like pork katsu, curry, and tempura are as unhealthy as anything western. The Japanese even perfected their own style of fried chicken. There have also been for a long time huge amounts of Western fast food available, and a large home grown fast food sector.

    Yet the 80s obesity epidemic skipped them by, and very recently, according thatarticle , have some changes been noticed . Since its fashionable to blame junk food, they do that, like we do.

    The article you linked mentioned a dramatic change in eating habits – as I said, it opened by saying Japanese are catching on to the Western super size me craze .

    These facts simply don’t support your position that the decisive factor is food composition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @üeljang
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. res says:
    @AaronB

    (emphasis mine below)

    Assuming the composition of our food has a dramatuc impact on hunger, which I doubt.

    I don’t believe hunger is entirely controlled by biochemicgal factors.

    Motte and Bailey is tedious. Do you think in anything other than false dichotomies?

    biochemistry cannot prove

    More of the same.

    Only intelligent guesses and educated analysis of history and annthropogy can shed any light

    Really?!

    It would be nice if you would debate the people you are talking to rather than your strawmen.

    It is probably not worth us engaging further. Carry on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. üeljang says:
    @AaronB

    Yes, the Japanese just ♥ ♥ DAISUKI ~\(^o^*)/~ their weird-looking fried chicken (karaage, tatsutaage, sanzokuyaki, etc.) and weird-looking watermelons.

    Oops! Was that doubly racist?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. AaronB says:
    @res

    See, I knew it would be pointless :)

    There is no need to get emotional. We are just too very different kinds of people.

    Anonymous claimed hunger was “entirely or strongly” driven by biochemistry. I was merely responding to what was said.

    My estimate would be, hunger is significantly mediated by psychological factors. I am only unsure if the division is fifty fifty or if psychological factors are dominant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. res says:
    @AaronB

    See, I knew it would be pointless

    Indeed.

    There is no need to get emotional.

    And an ad hominem response. How unsurprising.

    We are just too very different kinds of people.

    The word you are looking for is “two.” (and that exchange outlines how we are different in multiple ways, well done)

    Anonymous claimed hunger was “entirely or strongly” driven by biochemistry. I was merely responding to what was said.

    By restating “entirely or strongly” as “entirely”. You do understand how that is not “merely responding to what was said”, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    You seem to think that some post-modernist waffle about culture suffices to explain an epidemic of diseases such as obesity and diabetes without apparently realizing that (a) there is a clear empirical relationship between dietary change and the incidence of obesity and diabetes; and (b) mammalian physiology is an advanced science that provides plenty of evidence of the existence of neurological, hormonal and mechanical processes that regulate appetite and satiety. I summarized what I thought those two lines of evidence show at #254. If you want an outline of some of the critical studies, there is a review of the literature by U. Penn scientists Ahima and Antwi, in the article: Brain Regulation of Appetite and Satiety. There is, in addition, a vast related literature, which you would find instructive if you were to delve into it.

    In view of that literature, the idea that causes of obesity and diabetes are all in the mind seems simply ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    But my attitude is pre-modern waffle about culture, not post-modern. Pre-modern.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. Factorize says:

    res, are you on the infoproc seminar on the 12th?
    The phase transition conception of GWAS discovery seems to be gaining traction. Would really love to know what the state of the art is with IQ and EA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. res says:
    @Factorize

    I had not seen that yet. Thanks! Any idea if there will be video?

    It looks like IAS Natural Sciences posts videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL94E6A4174F8A3AD0

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    , @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    But my attitude is pre-modern waffle about culture

    Yes, I certainly could not agree that “waffle about culture,” pre- or post-modern, has any relevance to mechanisms of brain regulation of hunger and satiety and their responses to modification of diet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. ChrisD says:

    It’s interesting that in these 250+ comments there is such bickering over what one must or must not eat in order to shed the pounds rather than how one must live. It’s funny that in this day and age people are so hell bent on getting a dream body but at the same time preserving the status quo of their own unhealthy lifestyles, yet are paradoxically also so eager to change the institutions and social mores of their culture dramatically so as to destroy their own traditions (see Boomers and the Progressivist/liberal Left in the West for example). This paradox is exacerbated by corporations who want us to adopt fad diets and “fast acting” weight loss cures, all of which are garbage.

    No one here has mentioned the massive amount of people in sedentary lifestyles in the West as of the last 60 years. Over half a century of paper pushers and people sitting in front of TVs, computers, laptops etc., is the number one reason why Americans, Brits, and others have such obesity issues. Europeans have obesity issues too, but many (especially the younger and middle-aged) are less sedentary. European cities are designed to encourage walking, cycling and general movement. British and American cities rely on taxis/cabs, trains and buses more heavily. So an average American worker might drive to the subway station, park, walk a bit, then train it into the office, and sit down all day.

    Sure, the food itself is an issue per se, but I would argue it’s less of a causal factor. If you eat when you’re hungry but move around a lot and exercise moderately, you will not stack on the pounds. If you sit around, use transport frequently, and barely go outside then you’re likely to be overweight or obese.

    We were thinner in the 50s because we were forced to go outside more, move around more (the postwar period was also quite financially tight for many families which was also a factor, plus many people smoked which suppressed appetites to large degrees). The food wasn’t much healthier than it is today, you could still eat fast food en masse, have heaps of meat and sauces, and unhealthy carbs. The issue was moderation and movement.

    Since the mid 2000s there has been an explosion in fitness and active past times and I think this will translate to a lower rate of obesity among the coming generations, but it will take a lot to change the wealthy and well-fed Western societies from stacking on the collective pounds. It takes a lifestyle change which requires strong willpower and radical rethinking about how one lives one’s life day-to-day. You don’t even need a gym membership, you just need to move more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. JL says:

    I found this series of articles, “Why are we hungry”, to be an interesting discussion on the topic of hunger, especially for those of us without the patience or expertise to wade through the studies:

    http://www.gnolls.org/2304/why-are-we-hungry-part-1-what-is-hunger-liking-vs-wanting-satiation-vs-satiety/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  268. @CanSpeccy

    Gary Taubes is on the money here. The aeitiology of obesity and diabetes has to do with insulin. That much is clear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. @AaronB

    Of course it’s also mediated by psychological factors as well as hunger hormones like ghrelin which get up regulated during hunger and satiety hormones get down regulated. This all begins in the hypothalamus. Traci Mann does a great job elucidating this in her book Secrets from the Eating Lab.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. @CanSpeccy

    “In view of that literature, the idea that causes of obesity and diabetes are all in the mind seems simply ridiculous.”

    Obesity isn’t ‘all in the mind’ but, of course, psychological factors play a part and a lot has to do with how sugar changes brain chemistry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. @ChrisD

    All of this talk of what or how to eat and no one talks about WHEN TO EAT. That’s the main factor here. We constantly eat and alike put insulin not giving our bodies time to use fat for energy because it has constant streams of glucose for energy and that glucose comes from carbs which spike insulin which doesn’t allow fat to be unlocked from the adipocite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. AaronB says:
    @RaceRealist88

    ghrelin which get up regulated during hunger and satiety hormones get down regulated.

    Ok, but that doesn’t mean Ghrelin causes hunger, or ‘satiety hormones’, cause satiety.

    They are just present in those conditions.

    The scientific explanations for hunger are more or less a fairy tale, but I don’t object to them on score.

    If we found a diet that eliminated hunger, Americans would have to be persuaded to adopt it.

    That would mean restricting the amount and type of food they eat. That would mean restricting a major source of pleasure in their lives. It would mean subjecting themselves to an irksome discipline.

    But Americans are hedonists who don’t like discipline. American culture would have to seriously change before they would adopt any discipline and any restriction on pleasure.

    That’s why this is about culture and values even if science does a great job discovering satiety hormones.

    It’s not that science is making mistakes – it’s that this just isn’t a problem that can be solved by treating the body like a machine and ignoring human psychology.

    Science can do a fantastic job and figure out all our satiety hormones and the problem still won’t be solved.

    Now, another interesting way focusing on satiety seems misguided – all diets involve will power. Diets that eliminate hunger are not an exception. My diet may leave me feeling full, but I’ll need willpower to resist that delicious chocolate cake.

    So, if I’m using willpower anyways, why not use it just to eat anything but less of it? That sounds like it would be way more fun, and is actually the way the French and Japanese and Italians eat – it’s disciplined hedonism, in contrast to our culture of unbridled hedonism.

    So, the best scientifically devised diet does not eliminate the need for will power, discipline, restriction, and foregoing of pleasure.

    And alas, American culture currently does not support those behaviors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. Factorize says:
    @res

    Yeah, the blog raised the question about a video.
    Why did they go with the theoretical physics venue?

    I want to challenge myself and see how much of the math I can understand.

    It might be a good time for a parallel R coding session. I would love to have software tools that could give me an insight to what the phase transitions boundary for IQ or other traits/illnesses might look like. This is a substantial you important question as we could then have confidence that certain sample sizes would unlock IQ etc. .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  274. @nsa

    Again, this is very simple. Eat plant based whole foods and fruit when you can obtain it. Avoid all fats, dairy, refined sugar (poison), refined anything, and especially murdered animal parts.

    Actually, it’s even simpler than that. Much simpler. Americans have been eating the things they eat today throughout most of the 20th century. The issue is portion control. People are eating too much, and need to cut down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  275. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Johann Ricke

    People are eating too much, and need to cut down.

    That’s the kind of mindless platitude that people offer when they make the 275th comment without reading more than a couple of comments that went before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  276. utu says:

    People are eating too much, and need to cut down.

    Absolutely. This is the bottom line. You can’t suspend the law of conservation of energy:

    Energy_absorbed=Energy_spent+ k*∆Weight

    where the positive coefficient k converts units of mass to units of energy. Different diets however may have different proportions of absorbed to ingested calories. Most research studies do not take this into account. The fecal matter usually is not analyzed. Only ingested calories are estimated. Furthermore the confusion about different diets comes from the ambiguity of Atwater factors that assign calories to different foods, i.e., even the estimate of the ingested calorie is in errors

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5022E/y5022e04.htm
    The conversion factors related to carbohydrate present the greatest problems. [...] The use of specific rather than general factors can introduce major differences, which are more than threefold for certain foods. The value for carbohydrate energy in chocolate is an extreme example – the factors range from 5.56 kJ/g (1.33 kcal/g) to 17 kJ/g (4.0 kcal/g).

    In theory, there are 975 combinations for the major energy-containing components in food (13 definitions for protein, times three for fat, times five for carbohydrates, times five for fibre), each leading to different nutrient values (Charrondière et al., in press). The application of “accepted” energy conversion factors increases the number of different energy values. Clearly, a more uniform system is needed.

    In 2012 study it was demonstrated that Atwater conversion factor for almonds was overestimated by 32%.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
    The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0-6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168-170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.

    All nutrition diet studies use some versions of Atwater factors to establish energy intake for different diets. The differences of efficacy between different diets may stem from the fact that Atwater factors used are erroneous which give the rise to the idea among some sloppy nutritionist pseudo scientist that calorie is not a calorie. If it would be possible to measure calories at Energy_aborbed level more accurately the discrepancy between different diets that show that ∆Weight/∆Calories are different would probably vanish.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.long
    The effects of metabolizable energy and diet-induced changes in energy expenditure indicate that having 2 groups of subjects consume 2 different energy-restricted diets could introduce a different energy imbalance. Should this, however, be considered evidence that a calorie is not a calorie when comparing macronutrients? Dietary intakes calculated by using the Atwater general factors of 4, 9, and 4 kcal/g protein, fat, and carbohydrate, respectively, may be in error with respect to metabolizable energy content. This is particularly true for a high-fiber diet, in which incomplete absorption of the fiber reduces the metabolizable energy provided to the body. This is because the Atwater general factors are not exact constants for calculation of metabolizable energy. Indeed, that is one reason why the food tables from the US Department of Agriculture are calculated by using the Atwater specific factors

    We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  277. @CanSpeccy

    “But obesity, and general stupidity, is the price of feminism.”

    The whole gender role business is a survival strategy that has repeatedly worked rather well. That is why the greatest civilisations all had this as a major social construct; these were the groups that survived the great disasters. All really literate people with several millennia of written experience to go by know that one golden rule of survival is understanding that all empires and usury bubbles collapse within a few centuries at most, and in the most intensely urban societies this produces vast death tolls every time it goes down. However, if half the population is kept out of the trade/money economy and in the home, then when the crash comes those families will still have food put away, small gardens and flocks to live on.

    The Bible is very clear about ordering the people to keep women stickily at home and out of the marketplace, and the Jews who run our world know this very well. However, they use the ancient text as a template of temptations that they can sell to the gentiles, and feminism is a classic example of using a classic temptation to undermine ones enemies. Since tradition bans many practices, the secular Jews can sell those forbidden items, like prostitution and pornography, to the gentiles. Go ask Google who owns the porn industry, and you will see long articles by secular Jews bragging about how this has always been their industry and still is today. The entire feminist project in America would never have happened had the Jews not been allowed to run Hollywood and the newspapers, the internet and pop music.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  278. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Your comment gains nothing in relevance or interest through repetition.

    Self evidently, those who gain weight eat more than they consume. The question is: why?

    Most people eat when hungry and cease to eat when full. That is what most priggish lightweights do who counsel the obese to eat less, for if they did not they would rapidly become emaciated.

    The problem for the obese is that their experience of hunger and satiation is not adjusted in ways that results in a normal weight.

    There are many mechanisms, both neuronal and endocrinal, that are known to be involved in the control of eating. Defects in these control mechanisms can result in congenital obesity, which as anonymous above was at pains to explain for the benefit of those with ears to hear, can be controlled in some instances by the adoption of a ketogenic diet.

    In addition, as the above mentioned Taubes article in the British Medical Journal indicates, diet, in particular a sugar rich diet, may induced pathological obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  279. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Leslie Jacobs

    No question that the West is under genocidal attack — both its traditions and culture, and its European people. Jews, it is true, have played a prominent role in destroying Western civilization. But without stupid, greedy and treasonous non-Jewish elites in Europe and N. America (Justin Trudeau, for example), this modern, and by the media totally denied, Holocaust would not now be approaching an irreversible climax.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  280. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Most people eat when hungry and cease to eat when full.

    Scientifically unproven. Highly dubious.

    Self evidently, those who gain weight eat more than they consume. The question is: why?

    People like pleasure. Food provides it.

    I do hope that my comment gained both relevancy and interest through repetition :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  281. utu says:
    @AaronB

    People like pleasure. Food provides it.

    In developed countries it is one of very few pleasures the lower classes can get. Food is cheap and plentiful. Many food products are designed for maximum pleasure and craving with disregard for quality. The emptiness of their lives does not offer much chances from escaping from the trap of thoughtless gorging. It does not mean however that upper middle classes who manage to stay physically fit have spiritually more fulfilling lives. Their priorities however are set differently and they accomplish the relative good physical well being with a significant physical and mental effort. In most cases it is not a result of natural harmonious life and well being but as a conscious punishing and often heroic regime of diets and exercises they approach vehemently like a dragon that needs to be slayed daily.

    Evolution did not prepare people for the life with abundant food and purposeless and meaningless existence.

    Europe is still behind the US which as usual is a trailblazer in this process of degeneracy. In many places there one can still live relatively normal life where food is enjoyed and cherished but not fetishized nor vilified nor scientifically over analyzed. Social norms and rituals still keep many people, particularly those who have families, in normal healthy state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  282. Factorize says:
    @res

    res, this is a big one!
    Are you on the pot GWAS?!!?

    185k sample explains 10% of the variance???
    This is big!!
    We can predict who will smoke pot with a simple DNA sample??

    Strange part is that smoking pot leads to higher EA??
    Is that true across the board or only in specific fields?
    I doubt if pot would be a great career choice in engineering.

    (Just to let you know I am dropping off all sorts of little idea presents to smart people so that if some time I needed help with hernia surgery or something I would have credits in the bank. Best wishes for 2018.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  283. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Agreed.

    And yes, the upper classes who manage to stay thin do so through much effort and mostly for reasons I wouldn’t find so appealing.

    I used to be one of those people, and my motivation was mainly personal vanity. It’s was never effortless, and as you note, often a punishing, almost heroic process.

    The dream of the low carbers and other fad diets s to banish conscious effort from the process and make it an effortless, mechanical process.

    I understand the appeal, but it’s a fantasy. Even if our lives were spiritually fulfilling staying thin would require conscious effort. But it would be doable with the right values. But the human entity cannot be treated like a machine, and the need for discipline based on values cannot be eliminated.

    Europe is still behind the US which as usual is a trailblazer in this process of degeneracy. In many places there one can still live relatively normal life where food is enjoyed and cherished but not fetishized nor vilified nor scientifically over analyzed. Social norms and rituals still keep many people, particularly those who have families, in normal healthy state.

    This seems like an ideal state of affairs, and the reason many Europeans stay thin. Underpinning it is a cultural system based on certain values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  284. res says:
    @Factorize

    I am not seeing that pot GWAS. The one I see from 2016 is has a much smaller sample size: https://www.nature.com/articles/tp201636

    For things like pot/EA correlations it is important to understand the particular sample they use and consider both direction of causation and possible confounding variables.

    It is good to make deposits in the karma bank. I should be doing more of that right now. Best wishes for 2018 to you as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  285. utu says:
    @AaronB

    Technology will solve all the problems. Both for those who create them because they want to be to healthy via exercise and those who do not mind being too fat.

    People in their 20s are now getting hip replacements

    https://nypost.com/2017/12/04/people-in-their-20s-are-now-getting-hip-replacements/

    Engaging in high-impact sports — such as basketball, tennis, skiing or long-distance running — also stresses the joint, wears down cartilage and can hasten the need for a replacement in patients predisposed to arthritis, Davidovitch says.

    And, despite its healthy reputation, yoga can worsen hip problems.

    “I think of yoga as sort of a hip killer,” Davidovitch says, adding that anyone who experiences deep groin pain during intense yoga stretches should see a doctor.

    Children as young as 10 undergoing hip replacements because they are obese

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/children-as-young-as-10-undergoingg-hip-replacements-because-they-are-obese-a3695726.html

    Children as young as 10 are undergoing hip replacements because they are obese, official figures have revealed.

    Data from NHS Digital showed that hip and knee replacements due to weight have been on the rise among young adults and middle-aged people.

    Ten children aged between 10 and 19 have had hip replacements because they are overweight since 2014.

    The total number of knee and hip replacements among obese patients has seen a nearly 60 per cent hike in the past three years to 37,352.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  286. Factorize says:
    @res

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/08/234294.full.pdf+html

    This is great! I had not thought about all the other phenotypes (such as pot consumption) that might influence IQ, EA etc.. This might allow for yet more of the dark matter of genetics to unlock. It starts to become scary how much of our behavior will soon be predictable from a simple DNA sample which may or may not have been obtained with our consent.

    Yep, sending out positive energy can be another way of keeping score, though with a positive marginal return. Yet, for most the marginal return for wealth might even be negative.

    I had not realized that Doctor Thompson was a psychologist from the more practical branch of the discipline namely behavior modification. I was afraid he was more from the “What do you associate with bananas school?” (Monkeys?)

    Well, if he can help out in practical matters of living better great! Every 10 plus credits I can earn, could be spent learning how to pare down a pound.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  287. utu says:
    @Factorize

    how to pare down a pound

    Don’t do it! Wait till your DNA tells you what your weight should be. I am sure it is coded somewhere there. You don’t want to disobey nature and its genetic determinism, do you? Once you violate the laws of nature it may start an avalanche (a butterfly effect) and next the Moon may decide to change its orbit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  288. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    Most people eat when hungry and cease to eat when full.

    Scientifically unproven. Highly dubious.

    “Scientifically unproven”.

    LOL

    You think that’s what scientists do? Go about provening things.

    Perhaps that is what they do in the bogus post-modern American university.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  289. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I used to be one of those people [who diet to contain their weight], and my motivation was mainly personal vanity. It’s was never effortless, and as you note, often a punishing, almost heroic process.

    The dream of the low carbers and other fad diets s to banish conscious effort from the process and make it an effortless, mechanical process.

    So what you are saying is that you are a fat person who tried to be less fat either by eating less or by eating a low-carb diet (you don’t make it clear which), but the effort was more than you could manage.

    If it was by eating less, your experience confirms what you claim to be “unproven,” namely that obesity is due to an imbalance between appetite and physiological requirement. If it was by adopting a low-carb diet, your experience confirms that a low-carb diet is effective in combating obesity, presumably by curtailing appetite, but that it is a remedy you found too difficult to persist with.

    Either way, your testimony confirms the basic physiological reality, that obesity is due to an imbalance between appetite and physiological requirement and that that imbalance can be increased or diminished according to diet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  290. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I like good food, so I have the urge to eat too much. But I was vain and I liked girls, so I controlled myself. Plus, everyone around me was pretty thin, so my ego would stop me from stuffing my face. Sometimes, though, I put on a few more pounds than I’d like, then I’d have to control myself better. Now, I have different reasons to not eat too much.

    It’s really pretty simple. Appetite is a small part of the equation. Pleasure is the driving factor. It’s so obvious that only overly sciency types could miss it.

    Trust me, before this is over you’ll come around to sense :) We’ll make you see reason yet, canspeccy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  291. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Evolution did not prepare people for the life with abundant food and purposeless and meaningless existence.

    Evolution never prepared anyone for anything. It simply wiped out those unable to survive the prevailing circumstances.

    Such selection tends to insure that all creatures consume a lot when food is available, but not to the point of disability. It also affects food choice and the propensity to gorge on some foods rather than others. In that light, obesity is seen to be a pathology, albeit a pathololgy conditional on the quantity and composition of the food supply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  292. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    Sometimes, though, I put on a few more pounds than I’d like, then I’d have to control myself better.

    So you’re not fat, but you say would be fat but for your self-denial.

    LOL. Sounds like virtue signalling of questionable credibility.

    Appetite is a small part of the equation. Pleasure is the driving factor.

    More self-contradictory post-modernist imbecility. Where did you learn this stuff? Harvard? And do you spout it because you like to play the fool, or are you really, well, challenged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  293. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    So you’re not fat, but you say would be fat but for your self-denial.

    Exactly. That’s the human condition. Self denial in one form or another is baked in the cake, I’m afraid.

    Pleasure is our overlord, and must be tamed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  294. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Evolution never prepared anyone for anything.

    You are right. Your inability to handle your meaningless existence in your old age is a good example. Go do more ranting on the genocide of overweight white Brits in UK. Who knows, perhaps you will make a difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  295. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    In developed countries it is one of very few pleasures the lower classes can get.

    Nonsense. There’s always been sex, drugs and rock and roll. Or at least there were, in my younger day. Not that we bothered much with drugs and rock and roll, unless you call cigarettes and beer drugs. Indeed, in the age of Tommy Steel, Elvis, Coronation Street, etc., almost the entire culture was lower class. Upper class culture was mostly a joke, a joke enjoyed as much by members of the upper class, it seemed, as by anyone. And members of the elite made a living ridiculing their own class and culture, e.g., David Frost, Peter Cook and company on TW3, which relentlessly lampooned the upper class manners of the likes of Prime Minister Harold MacMillan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  296. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB

    Self denial in one form or another is baked in the cake, I’m afraid.

    As far as food is concerned, that has not been my experience. The other night I dug out an old bathroom scale and found that I tipped the balance within 16 ounces of the 145 pounds I weighed on leaving school 57 years ago.

    It is the case, however, that during middle-age I put on a few pounds round the middle, which I lost without any effort to reduce my overall intake of food, when I cut my consumption of beer to no more than a couple of bottles a month. A widely experienced effect of diet on weight, independent of deliberate control over total dietary input.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  297. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Your inability to handle your meaningless existence in your old age is a good example.

    That toothe-ache evidently still souring your otherwise idyllic upper-class existence, albeit the existence of an irritable upper-class polecat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  298. Factorize says:

    res, you on the massive T2D GWAS?
    They have found another back door to IQ and EA.
    Also impressive that they imputed tens of millions of SNPs and were able to greatly narrow the region with the causal SNPs.

    There will now be many other disease communities that will want a similarly sized GWAS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  299. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    It never occurred to me before that a toothache can be an object of envy for a toothless man but when you think about it, it kind of makes sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  300. res says:
    @Factorize

    No. Do you have a link, please?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  301. Factorize says:
    @res
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  302. Sparkon says:

    It seems I’m the only one commenting here who has any concerns at all about chemicals like aspartame in our food and drink.

    Pres. Donald Trump reportedly drinks 12 Diet Cokes a day, but had previously tweeted about its counterproductive effect:

    I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke

    Of course, appeal to authority is a fallacious argument, even if we accept the notion that Trump is an authority on diet, or that he never, ever flip flops on the issues.

    Or, even that he is thin.

    Well anyway, if you’ve ever had a toothache, you’ll be glad when that tooth is gone, but miserable when you learn sugar may have played a significant role in the formation of the dental carries that caused the toothache, and the subsequent extraction & loss of the valuable tooth, especially when you recall all that pogey bait you ate, and the fizzy sody pops you guzzled.

    Unfortunately, as bad as sugar is, aspartame is even worse, although I haven’t seen any link claimed between dental caries and the chemical.

    In the final analysis, the only good tooth to lose is Your Sweet Tooth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  303. If you don’t eat processed carbs and spike your blood glucose too much then you won’t get TIIDM. It’s largely a lifestyle disease. If I had an identical twin who was exposed to a diet high in carbs with low activity he’d be diabetic and obese, meanwhile I stave off DM by eating well. The obesogenic environment causes diabetes (diabesity).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  304. Factorize says:
    @Sparkon

    Dental caries?
    Not in the 21st Century!

    Silver diamine fluoride?
    {I think I deserve a point for that one.}

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  305. So, Snobson is not yet commenting on the last scandal about his secret pseudo-conference…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  306. Factorize says:

    So, this is the racist neo-Nazi thread?
    Why wasn’t I told?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/sjws-attac-ucl-neo-nazi-cabal/

    Since when was confronting problems and proposing viable solutions the problem?

    If IQ isn’t genetic, what then?
    A genetic solution is low hanging fruit: no extra homework or calisthenics required. If the new generation of activists are intent on doing things the hard way, I applaud them for their determination to put in the decades and decades of hard grueling and difficult labor that will be required to make a better world through a less obvious path.
    Genetic engineering means that all you need is to be born.
    Racial and class differences would disappear almost immediately.
    I am quite confident that the genetic path will quickly lead us to a much better life.

    Yet, I am much less sure about how one would go about changing the environment in such a way to increase IQ. It is thought that IQ might be broadly increasing, though there is a large argument in the psychometric community as to why this might be true and even if this is true.

    I’m in this to help lead everyone to a better life.

    I’m with Afro and Oke and others not merely because it is the morally right choice, but also because
    if we do not get moving on this soon we will all be waist deep in the looming Sub-saharan African social crisis/battlefield of the 21st Century as their population and problems continue to exponentially grow.

    As soon as the IQ enhancement machine kicks into gear, “those people” can be rephrased as “us people”. Pretending that such a distinction does not exist will simply delay the time when we can
    call all sing kumbaya. Notably there is a well-connected lobby that appears to never want such harmony to develop (please refer to the International Moratorium on Gene Editing Declaration).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  307. Sparkon says:
    @Factorize

    Well, sorta. Thanks for bringing it up, as I was entirely ignorant about this treatment, but after a quick drive-through on silver diamine flouride, I’ve learned that there is a fairly extensive set of restrictions governing the recommend application and usage of SDF by dentists, as well as the significant downside of darkening of the area of the tooth treated with the chemical.

    Nevertheless, any progress away from current methodologies for treating dental caries would seem to be an encouraging development, except for those masochists who look forward to visits to the dentist’s office to have their teeth drilled, and enjoy the fine aroma of burnt tooth.

    Strictly speaking, oral hygiene might appear at first glance to be outside the realm of diet, but if “Your body is your own temple” — and I agree that it is — then surely the gateway to the temple should receive special attention, and meticulous care, not only in deciding what is allowed to pass through this special place, but also in cleaning up any debris left behind by that which has gained admission to the temple, because that stuff sneaks in too. Fortunately, there is no known link between florid prose and dental caries…

    We know that An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we also know that sugar is implicated not only in the development of dental caries, but also in undermining good oral hygiene by promoting the growth of harmful bacteria that cause gingivitis, and lead to gum disease, or periodontitis.

    WebMD:

    Inflammation is also a sure sign of gum disease. Sore, swollen gums are the main symptom. There are two main types: gingivitis, which causes red, painful, tender gums, and periodontitis, which leads to infected pockets of germy pus. That’s the type that raises the worry for heart problems. It allows bacteria and other toxins to spread below the gum line.
    [...]
    Studies show that the bacteria found in periodontal disease — including Streptococcus sanguis, which plays a role in strokes– spreads to the heart. “The two appear to go hand-in-hand,” Merritt says. “In the absence of gum disease, there is significantly less of these bacteria in the heart.”

    So, there it is again: inflammation from bad bacteria leading to poor health prospects and outcomes.

    I was convinced by a dental hygienist to abandon manual flossing, and use a water pik instead. This device irrigates and cleans teeth and gums with a stream of pressurized water. The gadget is a bit messy to use, but now that I’ve improved my technique, I find it is giving me excellent results, and much improved oral health. Recently, I also switched over to an electric toothbrush, a device I had previously ridiculed and scorned, but which also is giving me excellent results, so in the spirit of the New Year, out with the old, and in with the new!

    Of course, your chew may vary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  308. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    as bad as sugar is, aspartame is even worse, although I haven’t seen any link claimed between dental caries and the chemical.

    Well it’s not conclusive, but here’s some indirect evidence: I never drink anything containing aspartame (which doesn’t taste like sugar to me), and at age 75 the only teethe I’ve lost are two smashed while skiing, and one lost in fight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  309. Factorize says:
    @Sparkon

    Silver diamine fluoride received Breakthrough designation by the FDA in 2016.
    This is the first treatment and preventative for dental caries.

    It is true that it would stain teeth black:
    Yet, it only stains the rotten parts of teeth and then prevents further decay.
    Not applying the silver would simply let the rot to continue.

    The product can also be used to prevent dental caries.
    I will be watching this to see whether we have now entered a caries free world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  310. cthulhu says:
    @James Thompson

    On the thermodynamic not being relevant argument, I simply do not understand the point being made. Bodies are heat machines.

    Coming in late to this thread, but let me see if I can give a succinct answer without too much simplifying. See GCBC for details.

    The “carb hypothesis” in Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories (aka GCBC) goes like this:

    0. In homeostasis, the body stores a modest amount of fat, and can easily use stored fat as required to meet the body’s energy needs. Insulin levels rise modestly as we eat, causing unused dietary carbohydrates to be stored as fat, then drop later, allowing the body to use stored fat. (Insulin is the hormone that controls access to our fat stores.)

    1. We eat too many carbs, especially easily-digested carbs and/or fructose, at a meal. Insulin levels rise abnormally high. The fructose can’t be used directly at all and is converted to fat by the liver, and because of the high insulin, said fat gets stored in the fat tissue immediately. The other carbs are converted to glucose, used to fuel the body and replenish glucose stores, and the leftovers are also converted to fat and stored.

    2. Insulin levels remain high, and this keeps the stored fat locked up. Normal activity depletes our stored glucose, and the stored fat is inaccessible due to high insulin. Therefore, we get hungry and eat!

    3. Repeat this cycle and we gain weight, because we can only use a portion of our food for metabolism due to elevated insulin, and the rest is stored as fat which is inaccessible to our metabolism. As long as insulin remains high, our stored fat cannot be used, and more of our food intake gets stored as fat.

    4. So the thermodynamic viewpoint is true but barely relevant. Yes, obese people take in more calories than they expend, but it’s because elevated insulin is both causing too many calories to be stored as fat, and preventing the body from using its stored fat, driving up appetite and reducing caloric expenditure. It has little to do with willpower, refusal to exercise, etc. Telling fat people that they just need to, say, suck it up and exercise portion control is offensive and wrong.

    5. Reducing calories without changing the composition of the diet is a fool’s errand. You have to get insulin levels down so that the body can use its stored fat. Get rid of sugar, especially any sugars that have substantial fructose content, and all carbs that provoke a significant insulin response – e.g., white flour. Eat moderate amounts of protein. Monounsaturated and saturated fat is fine. Dietary cholesterol is fine – it has essentially no impact on serum cholesterol; see Peter Attia’s “straight dope on cholesterol” series at his website.

    6. All diets that work do so by eliminating foods that cause a substantial insulin response and eliminating foods like fructose that are converted directly to fat and stored. This can be done with both high carb low fat and low carb high fat diets, but my take is that the best-designed studies seem to indicate that low carb high fat, properly designed, is easier to follow and overall more effective than low fat high carb. Once proper insulin sensitivity is recovered and stored fat is available for use, the obese person’s caloric intake will drop because he/she is less hungry, because his/her metabolism is functioning properly.

    7. There are people who seem to be capable of eating substantial amounts of grains without significant issues, which is not terribly unexpected since some human populations have been eating grains for several thousands of years. But it seems clear that there are plenty of people who can’t handle grains well. And sugar seems to be an unalloyed evil no matter how good it tastes :-(

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @notanon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  311. Sean says:

    I have known a couple of girls with anorexia and read up on it. I am afraid anorexia is lot more difficult to treat than this post implies, which makes me wonder about the diet for losing weight being as simple as the post makes it sound. There are certain personalities that incline to particular eating disorders. The girls are not stupid, quite the opposite in the case of anorexia. You get no thanks for mansplaining either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cthulhu
    , @James Thompson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  312. cthulhu says:
    @Sean

    Anorexia is way different than garden-variety obesity. It is a form of what is often called body dysmorphic disorder; a sufferer of anorexia (not always females, although it is far more common in females than males) looks in the mirror and sees an obese person, even when the sufferer is badly underweight. It is difficult to treat. Ordinary obesity can be successfully treated with dietary changes (still not trivial because it takes a lot of work and willpower to get past the initial sugar and simple carb cravings and break long-set habits), but anorexia is a brain problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  313. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @cthulhu

    An excellent explanation of why obesity has “little to do with willpower, refusal to exercise, etc. ” and why “Telling fat people that they just need to, say, suck it up and exercise portion control is offensive and wrong.” The composition of diet affects appetite, caloric intake and the fate of the calories consumed.

    Fructose, a dirt cheap ingredient of a vast number of fast and processed foods, is not interchangeable with glucose as a direct energy source because most cells lack the transporter necessary for fructose uptake. Hence most fructose ends up in the liver where it is converted to glycerol, a constituent of fat.

    Fructose, unlike glucose, suppresses production of leptin, which lessens appetite, but does not suppress production of ghrelin, which promotes feeding initiation.

    That is why Archer Midland Daniels, a major producer of high fructose corn syrup, has full-time employees doing tobacco science to convince you that consuming high fructose corn syrup is good for you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hu Mi Yu, RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  314. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Canspeccy I have a new theory for what’s driving obesity.

    In a way, I agree with the mechanistic people that emphasizing willpower and conscious control is wrong. I go even further – I say the desire to consciously control appetite, diet, and weight is precisely what’s driving the obesity epidemic!

    This is my tneory.

    At some point in America, in line with our scientific and mechanistic culture, we decided to control weight and appetite and diet. Modern scientific cultures are cultures of “control” -the goal is ever increasing control over all aspects of human life.

    I have found that when it comes to humans, the more we try to control ourselves, the more we mess things up and disrupt a delicate balance of forces.

    But I think at some point after WW2, the omniscient gaze of science settled on diet, and decided to control an area of life that hitherto most people didn’t think too much about.

    In a daring reversal of accepted views, I say there was no obesity epidemic until science started telling us how to eat! Science was not responding to a problem, it was creating a problem!

    Curiously, there is a clear correlation between scientific advice on how to eat, and rising obesity – the arrow of causality is generally supposed to point from obesity, to scientific advice on how to solve it. Such is conventional wisdom, at any rate.

    But in a flash of insight, I see now that the causality is exactly the reverse of that!

    So we both agree on the evil of willpower and conscious control, in the end.

    Sometimes I astound myself with my own brilliance.

    It is also curious that the less mechanistic a culture is, the less obesity is a problem. Indeed there is mounting evidence that just thinking about food causes hunger, and we are encouraged to obsess over food from a thousand different perspectives.

    Another brilliant insight – something I call “nutrient anxiety”. We Americans are terrified of not getting enough or the right amount of nutrients, which we are encouraged to think about in excruciating and obsessive detail. Now THAT was a masterstroke of the food industry!I

    We poor Americans, abused and traumatized by science and corporate interests alike, encouraging us to obsess over food from a thousand different perspectives!

    I should really organize these insights into a comprehensive theory and publish it. I know res would buy it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  315. notanon says:

    calories are a thing but so is insulin resistance

    nb very important for heart disease so anyone at risk of that should pay attention

    #

    law of thermodynamics

    this does apply of course but the detour around it in this context is that when you eat a diet that constantly spikes blood sugar levels *some of the calories aren’t burned* – they’re stored as fat or glycation products istead

    the body has a number of responses to excessive blood sugar levels e.g. the liver converting it into fat or glycation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycation

    so not all the calories are burned, so a person eating a blood sugar spiking diet might eat 1800 calories but only get to burn 1200 while the rest are stored in some way, so they’re still hungry and need to eat more.

    insulin resistance -> constantly hungry fat people

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  316. notanon says:
    @cthulhu

    7. There are people who seem to be capable of eating substantial amounts of grains without significant issues, which is not terribly unexpected since some human populations have been eating grains for several thousands of years.

    yes, part of the confusion here is some populations have had longer to adapt to a grain based diet so there is probably no perfect diet for everyone.

    however populations with relatively recent hunter-gatherer or herder/dairying ancestry (like northern Europeans) will on average be better adapted to meat and fat than to grains.

    (and maybe less of a problem back when people were burning the excess blood sugar off faster by working in the fields 12 hours a day)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  317. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Fructose, a dirt cheap ingredient of a vast number of fast and processed foods, is not interchangeable with glucose as a direct energy source because most cells lack the transporter necessary for fructose uptake. Hence most fructose ends up in the liver where it is converted to glycerol, a constituent of fat.

    What most people don’t know is that glucose is actually cheaper than fructose. The commercial production of fructose first converts corn starch into glucose and then uses enzymes to convert some glucose into fructose.

    You can buy glucose in your local health food store, but the trade names are confusing. Glucose is called corn sugar or dextrose. Corn syrup OTOH is a mixture of glucose and fructose. Glucose isn’t as sweet as fructose, but it is sweet enough.

    Dr. Robert Lustig has a video that may be interesting if you are not afraid of a bit of biochemistry.

    https://www.dietdoctor.com/robert-lustigs-new-talk-sugar

    I don’t necessarily agree with his politics, but it is clear that fructose is converted by liver enzymes into glucose or fat. Everyone has different levels of these enzymes. Personally I am nearly fructose intolerant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  318. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    Dr. Robert Lustig has a video that may be interesting if you are not afraid of a bit of biochemistry.

    Biochemistry is not my problem. I studied it under Sir Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the Krebs cycle paper. But what Dr. Lustig calls biochemistry is more commonly, I would have thought, called physiology, which is not a problem either, since I have doctorate in the subject.

    But the video provides an intro to important aspects of the subject of diet, diabetes and obesity (And I feel some confidence in the doctor since he correctly uses the plural demonstrative pronoun “these” with the plural noun “data,” so often mistakenly treated by Unz authors, e.g., Derb., and others, as a synonym for the singular noun “information.”).

    I suspect, unfortunately, that the humorist and mathematical obfuscator of physiological questions who have wasted so much space here will not follow your link.

    The key point of Lustig’s talk is the action of fructose on insulin production or action. Presumably there is literature to back this up (Lustig cites some that I have not read), in which case the argument that fructose containing sweeteners, including regular sugar, i.e., sucrose, buggers up the control mechanisms relating food consumption to utilization is compelling. Certainly the correlation between world-wide sugar consumption and the incidence of diabetes and obesity provides strong circumstantial evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  319. @Sean

    Well, the regime was about management. It did not really claim to be a cure. The point is that some regimes at that time led to higher death rates. This one worked, in the sense of keeping the patient alive and got her into talking therapy again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  320. Factorize says:

    res, Celebration Time!

    Another IQ GWAS!
    PMID: 29326435

    We are now edging toward the million person GWAS which would unlock the genetics of IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  321. res says:
    @Factorize

    Thanks! I just downloaded the paper and supplementary material. Did you see a SNP list? I did not in a quick skim, but hope to have time to look more closely in the next few days. Hopefully Dr. Thompson will comment on this paper. I also hope he is doing OK with the “Eye of Sauron” casting its gaze his way recently.

    Did you see Steve Hsu’s blog? He did another talk at a cognitive genomics forum and the videos (~35 min for Steve, ~6.5 hours in total) have been posted. I still have not seen video for his IAS talk, but hope it will be posted at some point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    , @res
    , @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  322. Stealth says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Sugarbusters, Paleo, South Beach, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  323. @James Thompson

    Of course most anorexia deaths are: suicides. Hospitalization does stop direct death by starvation. Good work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  324. @notanon

    utu should take note here. He spews the CI/CO nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  325. Factorize says:
    @res

    Amazing!
    It’s open access!
    This is too important for humanity to be behind a paywall!

    Did you notice that this article was submitted back in July?
    I think that at this point we need to start seeing these articles being Biorxived!
    It is too important for a half year to go and let this sit on the shelf.
    Given such long lag times, it would not be totally unexpected that the true
    breakthrough article is in process and ripening in some library. This
    whole thing will blow off the top when we move to or above 1 million sample size.

    SNPs are in Supplementary Tables 2, 3 and 4 and the Genes are in Table 5.
    This is startling! With all those 540 genes plus quite a few others that are close to the line I am starting to wonder if some smart cookies might yet be able to hack this. I mean just take your exome/genome file and then just search through for variants. The variants that they found were the ones on a gene chip so they would be typically fairly common. But what about the dark matter in those genes?

    The other article from this issue {PMID: 29321673} behind a paywall talks of the dark matter and finds that we are now up to genetics explaining 50% of variation. Wonder if they could give us an estimate of how much the 540 genes from MTAG explain?

    res, I am waiting for a social thaw to begin with the IQ-gene question. At some point protesters will understand that this technology will be a win for them. The social consequences of this research will be overwhelmingly profound for society. Perhaps we will soon go from the “Eye of Sauron” to the Eye of Approval. Of course, it is all in the Eye of the Beholder.

    Yes, I am following the infoproc site carefully. For about the last year or two this topic has been moving away from the purely scientific to more sociopolitical moshing. How will this sell on Main Street? I am not particularly good at finessing these emotionally charged topics, though it does appear that the iceberg is now moving in the right direction. If the US could pick this up and run with it, it could show strong leadership. It would catapult humanity into an entirely new realm.

    Everyone must be waiting for the shoe to drop and then be not sure what would happen next.
    We only need a 1-2 million GWAS. That’s nothing! Ancestry.com is already near 10 million
    and 23andme is at 3 million. This is easily within range, though the hesitation is holding us back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  326. G Pinfold says:

    Hah. 300+ comments… shows why more phDs go into health and nutrition than IQ.
    Seriously, if there is one area where everyone, and I mean everyone, is a know-it-all it is nutrition, and maybe exercise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  327. res says:
    @res

    I am going through the videos. One thing I am having trouble with is the videos are not very organized. 6.5 hours in 2 videos with things like dead air at the start and breaks in the middle (a recorded livestream, I think). Dr. Thompson, would you be interested in making a blog post where we could crowd source commentary and content (TOC or index like) information? This set of talks looks like a valuable set of information germane to your blog.

    For example, the PDF schedule is at https://www.alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/frontiers-group/events/exploring-frontiers-2018-what-makes-us-human
    and the first video is 3:07:25 long at https://www.facebook.com/AllenFrontiers/videos/907727616050576/

    The first three speakers and their approximate start times:
    12:00 Kathy Richmond – Assistant Director, scientific host of program
    14:00 Pierre Fontanillas, 23andMe: Personal genomics: New insights on decision making and online cognitive tools
    1:04:00 Danielle Posthuma, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: From GWAS to function: Novel results for intelligence and insomnia

    Prof. Posthuma’s talk discusses a paper covered in an earlier blog post. More here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/even-more-genes-for-intelligence/#comment-2167105

    Poorly formatted version of the PDF schedule (with talk titles) below.

    [MORE]

    Wednesday, January 17, 2018
    8:30-8:50am Registration and continental breakfast
    8:50-9:00am Tom Skalak and Kathy Richmond, The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group
    Welcome and introduction
    9:00-9:45am Pierre Fontanillas, 23andMe
    Personal genomics: New insights on decision making and online cognitive tools
    9:45-10:20am Danielle Posthuma, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    From GWAS to function: Novel results for intelligence and insomnia
    10:20-10:40am Coffee break
    10:40-11:15am
    Alan Evans, McGill University
    The Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives Initiative: Brain and behavior research in the
    era of big data
    11:15-11:50am Genevieve Konopka, UT Southwestern Medical Center
    Cognitive genomics: decoding human brain transcriptional networks
    11:50-1:15pm Lunch & networking
    1:15-1:50pm
    Jonathan Beauchamp, University of Toronto
    Genome-wide study identifes ~600 loci associated with risk tolerance and risky
    behaviors
    1:50-2:25pm Sophie von Stumm, London School of Economics and Political Science
    The genetics of education: DNA in the social context
    2:25-3:00pm Elinor Karlsson, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Founder of Darwin’s Dogs
    Citizen Science, Pet Dogs and the Complex Genomics of Behavior
    3:00-3:20pm Coffee break
    3:20-3:55pm Seth Grant, University of Edinburgh
    The time of your life
    3:55-4:30pm Stephen Hsu, Michigan State University
    Genomic Prediction of Complex Traits
    4:30-4:40pm Tom Skalak and Kathy Richmond, The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group
    Closing

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  328. @Factorize

    Oh man. You put so much hope into these GWASs. You’ll be in for disappointment soon

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  329. @G Pinfold

    People are more then welcome to have opinions on the matter but what they shouldn’t do is conflate opinion with fact and data. Most people are clueless about nutrition and spreading basic garbage about ‘CICO’ and the first law of thermodynamics being relevant to human physiology and also obesity. They’re both wrong.

    Just because you have an opinion on nutrition doesn’t mean you understand the physiological factors behind, say, obesity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  330. Factorize says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Race, res and everyone on the thread I need to speak my truth.

    I was inspired today by the dream of converting our discussions about IQ, genetics and the possible Genetic Singularity Event into a MOOC. It would be great!

    Let’s face it, this is now making the rounds of Higher Ed, serious money tech, probably quietly in gov. Why not bring this to the people?
    This is a We the People moment. It really should not be allowed to be decided upon by the elites. At some level this is about democratic soverignty. In most instances in the past democratic input was never sought after nor considered. Why not have a MOOC in order to provide an educational/social platform to talk about this?

    I think this would be a super great idea. It could go very large. It would also give me a chance to finally unwind the math and explore
    interesting questions.

    This is very exciting. Anyone else on board?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  331. res says:
    @Factorize

    Speaking of MOOCs, this is the closest I have seen to what you describe: https://www.class-central.com/mooc/1765/coursera-introduction-to-human-behavioral-genetics
    I took it a few years ago and enjoyed it.

    Matt McGue was coauthor of a 2009 paper about the heritability of general cognitive ability which Dr. Thompson referenced here (link to month since references don’t show properly in the individual post): https://www.unz.com/jthompson/2012/11/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  332. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Started the 5:2 fast diet mentioned there this week. I’d actually come up with a similar idea myself before, but nice to see an M.D. did too.

    In order to maximize my protein while staying under 600 calories on the two days, I just had 3 whey protein shakes blended with iced coffee, and a few smoked almonds to have something to crunch on. Went to the gym to lift both days.

    Had some serious cramps, probably from losing electrolytes, but dropped about 8lbs in those two days. Will add some sugar free gatorade or similar next week. Maybe this will work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  333. Factorize says:
    @res

    I envision a MOOC specifically focused on what we have been interested here on these threads: namely, genetics, intelligence and the rapidly approaching rupture of human civilization when the technology that is already on the table migrates out into the wild.

    This the biggest thing in the history of the universe– ever.

    We need to bring this conversation to a mainstream audience.
    I am seeing a MOOC with 100,000+; a truly epic mass learning experience. We could have an inclusive learning format which had areas for concentrations on the math, the sociopoloitical activist, the enabler etc. sides of this issue. We could really engage the kids in a topic that will permanently redefine human existence.

    For whatever reason even unz.com is not engaging with this issue. unz.com is a leader in talking about difficult topics, though talking about the coming wave of genetic enhancement seems almost off limits. The Genetic Singularity is mentioned, infinite technology is suggested and then the conversation returns to discussing a possible 1 point difference in IQ between adjacent nations.

    It’s time to take this to The People and mosh it out.
    We absolutely need to talk about this.
    The social changes that will soon occur will be massive.

    Comments please!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  334. Factorize says:

    res, you on it?

    Look at Supplementary Table 2 from the recent article order by beta.
    (You need to copy and paste the beta to gene columns to order them)

    What do we have? A list of SNPs with the most effect to make people intelligent or anti-intelligent. At the top of the list of smart genes are are AFF3, TSGA10, LONRF2, RN7SL423P, ST3GAL3, HMGN2P22, INPP4A, SLC4A10, RPL31P12, and PSMD14. At the top of the list of anti-intelligent genes are AFF3, LONRF2, C2orf15, EIF5B, MEF2C, NEGR1, SLC39A8, Corf76, PHACTR3 and BCL11A.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  335. Factorize says:

    The implications resulting from the current round of research into the genetics of IQ needs to be discussed URGENTLY!

    The human genome will unlock over a near term time horizen.
    When that happens it would be possible to accurately phenotype people for a range of traits simply with genotypes.

    This would have extremely profound social consequences. Children could be genotyped before they ever set foot in a classroom, made their first childhood friend or before their parents bought their first home. Our entire society could be organized by genotypes in a way that has never been possible before.

    For those being born now, it needs to be clearly understood that genetics will play a central role in structuring their life trajectory.

    It should be understood that we are no longer discussing something that will have impact in some distant future years from now. The reality is that the impact of this technology should be expected more on the time frame of months.

    It is reasonable to expect that the truly profound social shock wave that should result from anticipation of such changes is even now in the process of formation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  336. Factorize says:

    This could certainly make things interesting.

    http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/2018/01/regeneron-announces-major-collaboration-to-exome-sequence-uk-biobank-genetic-data-more-quickly/

    The UK Biobank is such a leader in genetic science.
    Is any other nation even close to make a relevant contribution?

    Increasing sample size to 2 million would nearly fully unlock the human genome.
    Why haven’t they stepped up?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  337. res says:
    @Factorize

    Good find. If I read correctly there are 5 companies contributing $10M each. This is $100 for each of the 500K participants. Just how cheap is whole exome sequencing in bulk these days?

    Given the low proportion of IQ SNPs in exonic regions (e.g. see Figure 1c in Posthuma paper linked above) I wonder how effective whole exome will be compared to whole genome, or even the current SNPs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  338. Factorize says:
    @res

    $100 might even be on the high side.
    Sequencing prices have not kept to their price trend for a few years now.
    It is also not entirely clear to me whether a full effort would be required
    with actual sequencing as opposed to a more haplotypic approach.
    Clearly when we hit $100 for full genome everything would unlock on the consumer marketplace’s dime.

    UKBB has such a brilliant organizational design. Every single other informational type enterprise
    that springs to mind has either declared bankruptcy or is in a great struggle for existential viability.
    I looked over their financials and it was quite a revelation. Their budget is only 10 million pounds.
    Basically it is a shell and they are being very frugal. All the expenses are devolved to the NHS, the researchers, corporate partners and others. This makes them nearly immune to political cost cutting.
    Yet, all the positives from the research and the corporate partnerships can be attributed to them.

    There are so many angles that they could play! For instance, they might reasonably ask those in the 500K study to contribute perhaps $50 to access their exomes through the agreement, that would be greatly under the retail price. Even if they provided the exomes to the study participants for free they have still provided at least $150 million in value to the recipients. If they retained some sort of data access rights to the exomes, then they could have a fairly valuable resource that could be used to sequence synthetic genomes. Who wouldn’t gladly pay $20 to convert their gene chip file to such a genome? I’ve paid thousands of dollars in genomics products and I’m still not up to a synthetic genome. The licensing revenue that they could derive from a Biobank Human Phenome chip would
    also be an overwhelming opportunity for them. There is such a massive hidden asset value in UKBB.
    I suppose that as a charity they would not be allowed to monetize most of it.

    A half million exomes? Very impressive, especially as they intend to do this in house.
    I would have thought that BGI would need to be called in at this scale. Also the
    $50 million seems to be an incremental cost based on their unwillingness to wait
    2 or 3 years.

    It is very encouraging to see that we have turned the corner and
    it is now perceived that being overly cautious is riskier than making a bold move.
    It would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars ten years ago to have made the
    GWAS breakthroughs that have occurred lately. At that time such investments
    were not feasible. In the current context not making such commitments would seem
    equally foolish. Having big money support will further turbocharge the research effort.

    That is true that exonic SNPs might not be overly useful for IQ analysis, though that line of
    inquiry would not be the motivating factor for the companies involved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  339. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Biochemistry is not my problem. I studied it under Sir Hans Kornberg, the lead author of the Krebs cycle paper. But what Dr. Lustig calls biochemistry is more commonly, I would have thought, called physiology, which is not a problem either, since I have doctorate in the subject.

    After watching Dr. Lustig’s first video, I was inspired to go back to school and take classes in biochemistry, physiology, and biology. I had been diagnosed with diabetes (fasting BG=300) and advised to take insulin. Instead I spent the three months before my next visit rotating my diet and monitoring my BG (blood glucose). At my next visit, the doctor agreed I did not need insulin. A few months later I discontinued even the low dose of metformin that I was prescribed.

    I found that I fit Dr. Lustig’s profile for metabolic syndrome perfectly, and my diet rotation ruled out anything containing fructose. This included nearly all fruit and many vegetables. On this point I go farther than Dr. Lustig, who claims the fructose in fruit is somehow different than processed sugars like HFCS (high fructose corn syrup).

    I also found I had problems with dairy products and beans. This connects with the paleo diet, and I have some suspicion that galactose may also be part of the problem (found in both). This is puzzling because galactose is like glucose in being sn aldose and forming a six carbon ring in the blood. Fructose is different in being a ketose and forming a five carbon ring. This makes it more reactive and harder to convert into glucose. Problems with fructose are easier to understand than problems with galactose.

    I also studied a bit of anthropology. It seems that the latest results show that humans first diverged from chimpanzees about six million years ago, most likely with a Robinsonian translocation that merged two ape chromosomes into human chomosome 2. Thus humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24. These early humans were hardly different from chimpanzees, but due to the founder effect they tended to have longer legs. My speculation is that for this reason they were less suited for climbing trees and more suited for digging up roots and tubers. So we gradually adapted to a diet of starches rather than fruit. In our genome we have something like six times as many copies of genes for synthesizing amylase (the enzyme that breaks down starch) as chimpanzees. There is of course no fructose released in the digestion of starches.

    The next step in our evolution may have been migration to the sea shore in the manner suggested by Cunnane. Here I can imagine the reaction of an ape accustomed to digging in the earth with a stick when he sees a bubble coming out of the sand. Upon digging he would find a clam, and he quickly discovers a new abundant supply of food with no competition.

    I have already referenced his book Survival of the Fattest in another thread on this site. Despite the title, it is serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  340. Factorize says:

    I was wondering last night what would be a good reality check indicator that I could use
    to see if others also expect that we are now inside of the event horizon of the Genetic Singularity.

    It then occurred to me: Fertility!
    The only reasonable and rationale response of anyone who believed in the argument of the Genetic Singularity would be to postpone reproduction. Conceiving a child now who would likely have an IQ of up to several standard deviations lower IQ than would be possible in the near term future is not rationale.

    There it is everyone. We now have an operational definition of the social recognition of the Genetic Singularity Event. If total fertility rates especially in developed nations enter an unexpected collapse anytime near this date, then we would have a clear indication that people understand the reality of this new era. We might now have a year or two in which there is essentially zero fertility in the community.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  341. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    I have already referenced his book [Dr. Lustig's book] Survival of the Fattest in another thread on this site. Despite the title, it is serious.

    “Survival of the fattest”: isn’t that the basis of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

    But yes, there seem to be very good biochemical and physiological reasons to avoid much of what constitutes the Western diet, the high fructose content of much processed and fast food being one of them. Lactose intolerance is evidently the reason dairy products are a problem for some, but are there others? And too much milk will result in hypercalcemia especially among America’s mostly magnesium deficient population, but are there other health hazards related to the consumption of dairy products?

    As for beans, do you know of a problem other than favism in those with a glucose-6-diphosphate dehydrogenase deficiency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Hu Mi Yu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  342. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Hu Mi Yu

    There is a recent (2016) broad-ranging review of how fructose makes you fat and diabetic here:

    Fructose: a highly lipogenic nutrient implicated in insulin resistance, hepatic steatosis, and the metabolic syndrome.

    It’s interesting that flowering plants have developed fruits rich in a substance (fructose) that promotes gorging, and thus the distribution of their seeds by way of the gut of animals eating the fruit.

    More recently, the fast food industry has harnessed the same mechanism, developing products such as fudge sundaes and Oreo cookies rich in a substance (fructose) that promotes gorging, thus the flow of profits by way of the gut of the animals eating those products.

    Also of possible interest is this paper:

    Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans

    Which demonstrates in a human trial that fructose increases adiposity and causes insulin insensitivity.

    Also, the review article noted above, contains a number of references to neurological effects of fructose, suggesting that a high fructose intake negatively impacts brain function, a topic surely worthy of further investigation by students of human intelligence. Maybe the Chinese are smarter than Americans because they eat rice not junk food, in which case I suppose the spread of KFC and MacDonalds is part of the devious Western plot for world domination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  343. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    How much dairy would have to be consumed before hypercalcemia set in?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  344. Alden says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The wood fires were for heat and cooking, not light.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  345. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alden

    How much dairy would have to be consumed before hypercalcemia set in?

    Quite a lot, probably.

    The Institute of Medicine in Washington, DC proposed a “dietary reference intake” for calcium of 800 mg per day, which is equivalent to a liter and a half of milk per day. According to the same authority, the upper safe limit to calcium intake is just over three times the recommended intake, i.e., 2500 mg per day.

    But these values are simply guesstimates. There are no solid data, and it is difficult to see how, in the absence of a team of Nazi doctors working unimpeded, solid data could be obtained. Moreover, the optimum intake of any element depends on multiple factors. In the case of calcium, it is believed that a ratio of 2:1 with magnesium is optimal, but as most Westerners are more of less deficient in magnesium, any intake of calcium in excess of the minimum requirement may be detrimental.

    The requirement for calcium also depends on vitamin D status, since vitamin D is converted, under the influence of the parathyroid hormone, to calcitriol, a hormone that enhances calcium retention by the kidney and calcium uptake from the gut, while limiting calcium uptake by bone tissue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  346. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “Survival of the fattest”: isn’t that the basis of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

    Not really. The unfortunate title is a pun on the Darwinian slogan survival of the fittest actually invented by an older contemporary named Herbert Spencer and named after Darwin. The theory of evolution is based on Darwin’s observations in Origin of Species, but Darwin himself didn’t have a coherent theory of the sort we have today. He never understood the mechanism for here