Scientists Claim Overeating Is Not the Primary Cause of Obesity

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-claim-overeating-is-not-the-primary-cause-of-obesity-point-to-more-effective-weight-loss-strategies/

by paulpauper • 4 years ago

17 13 4 years ago

scitechdaily.com

stjohnswarts• 4 years ago

I think the stuff we eat has a lot more to do with obesity epidemic than "calories in calories out". CICO imbalance is just a symptom of the issue, not the root cause if you think past first order effects. It has been clear for decades.

clnq2• 4 years ago

It's good to see that in recent years we have been talking more openly about more nuanced aspects of obesity than just calories in vs. calories out. I think that this reductive way of thinking (while practical to an extent) has stigmatised scientists who are looking beyond it. And it is a little bit sad to see that we have already had carbohydrate-insulin models for over a century but they are just now entering the public consciousness.

I hope we will see biotech or personalised medicine put the last hundred of years of research into practice soon and something a bit less rudimentary than calories in-calories out becomes practical for treating our obesity epidemic.

titanomachy2• 4 years ago

I don’t know if they’re “just entering into the public consciousness”. Growing up in the 90s my parents obsessively followed the “zone” diet by Barry Sears. As I recall his books were bestsellers.

The book talked in detail about the carbohydrate/insulin relationship, and the diet revolved around keeping down glycemic load by managing macros and choosing low glycemic-index carbs. It was meant to be a sustainable way of eating rather than a temporary “weight-loss” diet.

I don’t know if that stuff stayed in the public consciousness at all (it seems to have faded like other fad diets.) But it was the first systematic nutrition system I encountered and it had an influence on how I eat. When I started, I counted macros, but I got tired of that pretty quickly and rough estimates seem to get most of the same benefit.

clnq2• 4 years ago

Yes, exactly. The knowledge about low GI diets having a positive impact on weight has been around for a while if you knew where to look, or if there was a fad that briefly made them popular.

Still, in recent years I've been observing a perception shift from fats intake being the culprit of obesity to carb/sugar intake, and especially high glycemic index foods being responsible. The Time Magazine dedicated their June 23, 2014 issue to this switch in public perception of fats and carbs. And to my mind, the time around 2014 was when a lot of terminology like "sugar tax" entered politics and casual conversations more. This can be seen on Google Trends, along with huge spikes in popularity of topics revolving around "paleo diet" in 2013 and "keto diet" in 2016.

It now seems to be a well-known fact that sugary sodas and high carb intakes are associated with obesity and certain health conditions. We used to worry a lot more about fat intake around the year 2000.

wrycoder2• 4 years ago

Instead, the carbohydrate-insulin model lays much of the blame for the current obesity epidemic on modern dietary patterns characterized by excessive consumption of foods with a high glycemic load: in particular, processed, rapidly digestible carbohydrates. These foods cause hormonal responses that fundamentally change our metabolism, driving fat storage, weight gain, and obesity.

This conforms exactly with my experience over the last four decades. A low carb diet with a focus on low-glycemic carbs, while avoiding high-glycemic carbs (typically refined flours and sugars), is the way to keep from gaining weight.

With that diet, if you cut back on eating so that you are slightly hungry, you'll lose weight. And that's not too hard, because the fat intake sustains you between meals.

About the worst thing you can eat is corn chips and Coke, which is what a lot of people in the West consume all afternoon and evening.

Edit: Normally I eat a high protein, high fat diet and I can maintain my weight that way.

This evening, we went over to a friend's place to watch a film. The meal was a choice of pea soup with ham, "cheeseburger soup", and/or turkey chowder, plus rolls, pumpkin bread, and a delicious apple pie with ice cream. That's about the far opposite of my normal diet. We are just sitting here kind of bloated at this moment.

titanomachy2• 4 years ago

Pea soup with ham doesn’t sound so bad. Pulses are reasonably low-glycemic.

wrycoder2• 4 years ago

That’s true, but the rest of the meal was 80% high glycemic carbs, at least. Almost no protein.

kiawe_fire• 4 years ago

I’ve been reading a lot of Dr. Jason Fung’s work, which is based on this theory. Anecdotally, I very much concur that weight gain is ultimately a function of something hormonal, and likely related to insulin. Running on a calorie deficit has led to little or no weight loss for me, but a diet free of processed foods and intermittent fasting has been so far successful.

That said, this theory also often attempts to challenge the calorie consumption vs energy expenditure model entirely. I think it’s a bit reductionist to rely solely on calories burned vs calories eaten (or perhaps differently stated, I think the BMR model is over broadly applied and misses how complex your body’s metabolism is), but at the same time, one aspect of a less processed diet is how, after being weaned from the processed foods, it leads one to have fewer cravings, higher energy levels, and less hunger naturally.

So the model of calorie reduction (and conversely, overeating) still seems to have some applicability, it’s just that it’s probably wrong to tackle it with “eat fewer calories” as your first and primary goal. IMO, it’s more effective to flip that around.

Eat as much whole, unprocessed food as you like without counting calories, and your hormones will adjust your appetite and energy levels such that you will inherently eat fewer calories, crave less junk food, and have more energy. The end effect of a calorie deficit is probably similar, but one is sustainable hormonally, and the other is (imo) not.

One other way of stating it - instead of viewing obesity as an effect of overeating, perhaps we could view overeating as an effect of obesity.

n8henrie• 4 years ago

It's a shame that metabolic ward studies are so expensive and relatively rare. I think there would be a much more informed conversation on these topics if people looked to them more enthusiastically.

boppo1• 4 years ago

Anecdata: I stuck with CICO + IIFYM and strictly kept track of everything manually using a scale, excel, and nutrition labels. I lost 30 lbs in 3.5 months almost exactly in line with my calculations.

A big factor was "standard days/meals" so that I could just measure food & re-use previously entered numbers to save time and hassle. Admittedly, my diet was boring. But I didn't care because my results were so clear.

From my interactions with lots of people whom CICO+IIFYM fails, they seem to not be actually tracking their intake precisely and honestly.

prirun• 4 years ago

How is it even possible for the average person to calculate calories expended every day?

sannee• 4 years ago

Calculate? No. But you do not need to calculate, you can measure it indirectly, by running something like:

    X ← 2000
    while true:
        eat X kcal/day for about two weeks
        if your weight has increased: 
            X ← X - 200
        if your weight has decreased:
            X ← X + 200

Observe that this can also be modified for gaining/losing weight. It is also robust --- X actually need not be physically accurate, it is just a number in our calorie tracking app, so even if we are miscounting something, we are hopefully doing so consistently over time.

2Slow• 4 years ago

When i switched to paleo i was more hungry in first month. While i ate more i also lost 3kg ( or like that ) that month

Scientists Claim Overeating Is Not the Primary Cause of Obesity

Related Stories