Fat Logic

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wrong kind of survey.

Sorry, where does it say that intake was not self-reported?

ETA: One would think a methodological problem like that, if there was one, would be caught in peer review.

Not at all. The opposite is the case, hence why so many (as linked in this thread) are now warning about using self-reporting in nutrition studies.

Maybe, maybe not. This is only one study. However, from a critical thinking perspective, it cannot be disregarded simply because it does not fit with what you already believe to the case.

The theory must fit the data, not the other way around.

Disingenuous nonsense.

 

[Roboramma]

...because the CDC isn't just relying on what the people report. They are also conducting medical exams. The Census, assuming they are using the standard census method most people are familiar with, are just making out forms for people to fill out and mail back.

What kind of medical exam do you think they could have used to determine food intake? Medical exams may have been used to determine other variables, but it's clear that food intake was determined by asking people what they ate.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, where does it say that intake was not self-reported?


Not at all. The opposite is the case, hence why so many (as linked in this thread) are now warning about using self-reporting in nutrition studies.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize published peer-reviewed studies don't count anymore. Clearly, you know something people who actually work in the field don't.

Disingenuous nonsense.

What are you talking about? When did "fit your theory to the data, not the data to your theory" become nonsense? That is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

What is going on in this thread? Is the idea that weight is solely determined by "calories in vs. calories out" such a sacred cow that challenging it is blasphemous? I posted one peer-reviewed study to the contrary and suddenly the scientific process is garbage and you can't rely on scientists in the field (both the authors and the reviewers) to not consider simple possibilities that could occur to posters on a forum board.

Yes, it is only one study. Yes, it could be wrong. However, if it's wrong, it's going to be shown wrong by another study, not by amateur yahoos like us on an anonymous forum board with no expertise in the subject at all.


Ugh. I had no idea fat shaming was so faith-based. Now, I remember why I quit these threads.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you not understand what they did in the study or are you just ignoring it?

I was not referring to the study, I was responding to Emily's Cat's long list of environmental factors, purporting to be the cause in the rise of obesity.

 

[Upchurch]

What kind of medical exam do you think they could have used to determine food intake? Medical exams may have been used to determine other variables, but it's clear that food intake was determined by asking people what they ate.

When I was in college, one of my friends did a nutritional study on my roommate. She literally followed him around for a week and logged what he ate.

I don't know their specific methodologies. I do know that self-reporting is not the only possibility.

 

[Upchurch]

I was not referring to the study, I was responding to Emily's Cat's long list of environmental factors, purporting to be the cause in the rise of obesity.

I don't think anyone is claiming that lack of exercise can't lead to obesity. The point you seem to be missing is that there is evidence that other environmental factors can also lead to obesity.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize published peer-reviewed studies don't count anymore. Clearly, you know something people who actually work in the field don't.

And now you aren't even bothering with defending your claim and are going straight to snark. I am convinced.

The question was: where does it say the data was not self-reported?

What are you talking about? When did "fit your theory to the data, not the data to your theory" become nonsense? That is the cornerstone of critical thinking.

That's a nice thought, but not the point. You are responding to people questioning a study based on self-reported data, a known problem in nutrition studies, by disingenuously questioning people's motives for bringing up this fact.

What is going on in this thread? Is the idea that weight is solely determined by "calories in vs. calories out" such a sacred cow that challenging it is blasphemous? I posted one peer-reviewed study to the contrary and suddenly the scientific process is garbage and you can't rely on scientists in the field (both the authors and the reviewers) to not consider simple possibilities that could occur to posters on a forum board.

Yes, it is only one study. Yes, it could be wrong. However, if it's wrong, it's going to be shown wrong by another study, not by amateur yahoos like us on an anonymous forum board with no expertise in the subject at all.


Ugh. I had no idea fat shaming was so faith-based. Now, I remember why I quit these threads.

I can see why if you are going to jump to such unwarranted, dramatic conclusions based on a simple question of data validity.

As has been pointed out in this thread, other scientists are calling out self-reported data in nutritional studies. And I didn't know the cornerstone of critical thinking was "don't question data from dubious sources".

 

[marplots]

What is going on in this thread? Is the idea that weight is solely determined by "calories in vs. calories out" such a sacred cow that challenging it is blasphemous?

Not blasphemous, but enough of a sacred cow that it isn't going to be easy to tip it over. Casting doubt is a good start. A good follow up would be demonstrating another mechanism.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't know their specific methodologies. I do know that self-reporting is not the only possibility.

So you don't know that it depended on interviews and recall. Thanks.

 

[Roboramma]

When I was in college, one of my friends did a nutritional study on my roommate. She literally followed him around for a week and logged what he ate.

I don't know their specific methodologies. I do know that self-reporting is not the only possibility.

Sorry, my bad, yes that is certainly an option. I thought it was obvious given the size of the study that that wasn't done in this case.

Another option is to have people record what they eat over some specific period of time, rather than asking them to think back and remember what they ate afterward. I suspect the former would be more accurate than the latter (and less expensive than following people around and recording what they eat for them), but still subject to some problems.

 

[Upchurch]

Not blasphemous, but enough of a sacred cow that it isn't going to be easy to tip it over. Casting doubt is a good start. A good follow up would be demonstrating another mechanism.

Sure:

Don't forget gut flora

And sure:

“As many as 10% to 15% of weight issues are related to medications,” says Louis Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Some meds can make you feel hungrier. Others slow your body’s ability to burn calories or cause you to hold onto extra fluids.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Personally I think the study is a lazy PR one. They found a lack of explanation in a previously done dataset and called it a day, using weasel words and a press release to argue things not established in their data. Then the press ran with it.

This blog took the same approach, rejected the self-reported data as problematic, and compared with a separate dataset over a year ago.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/04/calorie-intake-and-us-obesity-epidemic.html?m=1

This study from 2009 used a similar approach of using multiple datasets like the blog and went even further. It concluded the increase in obesity is due to caloric intake.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090508045321.htm

So yes, I am perfectly okay with being skeptical of a study that used a methodology others have previously rejected.

 

[marplots]

Sure:

​

And sure:

​

I don't want to critique those specifically (although I do think there is much to dispute there), but focus on the larger point.

Suppose we agree that either (or both) gut flora and medications can lead to obesity without any increase in calories consumed. (A very generous extrapolation from the material you linked to.) In order to have evidential value as a mechanism for the upward trend of obesity (without increased calorie intake, nor a decrease in activity), we'd have to demonstrate that either (or both) of the following changed during the period in question:

1) People have a different gut flora than previously.
2) People are taking more medications that cause obesity than previously.

Are either (or both) of those the case? If so, we at least have an association, a first step toward causation. If not, there's a problem - either it hasn't been investigated, or there's yet more to the story.

Ain't epidemiology fun?

 

[Upchurch]

I don't want to critique those specifically (although I do think there is much to dispute there), but focus on the larger point.

...and possibly move the goal posts, while we're at it. One thing at a time. Discussing the prevalence of these other mechanisms in the population makes little sense if we do not agree that they exist.

Do you agree that there is evidence for other mechanisms aside existing apart from solely "calories in vs. calories out"? Is the sacred cow unassailable?

 

[marplots]

...and possibly move the goal posts, while we're at it. One thing at a time. Discussing the prevalence of these other mechanisms in the population makes little sense if we do not agree that they exist.

Do you agree that there is evidence for other mechanisms aside existing apart from solely "calories in vs. calories out"? Is the sacred cow unassailable?

Yes, I agree there is some evidence. Does that evidence explain the phenomena we are interested in?

As always, it comes down to not the facts we agree on, but the significance of those facts. As an example, the paper in Nature shows a difference of less than one Calorie per gram (of stool) difference between the types of intestinal flora. Does this support or disconfirm the hypothesis? Would it explain a 25% difference in fat over 10 weeks?

But in the larger picture, it doesn't matter if gut bacteria are offering up a significantly higher amount of calories (from the same food) or if the bacteria are influencing fat storage after absorption - all we want to know is if there's a difference in weight gain.

I thought I was helping by not dipping into the nuances, but simply granting them provisionally to see where the "best case" gets us. Does it get us where we want to go on the obesity trend question or not?

Secondly, do alternate hypothesis have to force us to abandon calories in/calories out, or do they merely modify the curve a bit?

The reason these questions are important is because the calories in/calories out model does not depend on how efficiently I handle calories - that's already considered when we say weight loss/gain is relative and subject to individual variation. It is not a model that requires one specific number of calories for every individual - it's titrated. However, if external, acute (as opposed to chronic, which is already captured) processes overwhelm the calories in/calories out model, then that's pretty significant.

I think it would be a straw man to suppose that environmental changes can't/don't affect calorie usage. I can think of a few easy cases - I lose a couple arms. I have less tissue to support and therefore can use more calories to make fat. Or I move to a warmer climate and don't have to burn as many calories keeping my body temperature up. Neither of those would abrogate the calories in/calories out model, because they end up being chronic considerations. But so too, they don't fundamentally challenge the "eat less, move more" idea.

 

[Upchurch]

Secondly, do alternate hypothesis have to force us to abandon calories in/calories out, or do they merely modify the curve a bit?

Once again, no one is saying that calories in vs. calories out is not a factor. At least, not to my knowledge. What people are arguing against, and providing evidence for, is that calories in vs. calories out is not the sole factor.

 

[marplots]

Once again, no one is saying that calories in vs. calories out is not a factor. At least, not to my knowledge. What people are arguing against, and providing evidence for, is that calories in vs. calories out is not the sole factor.

I suppose it depends on how we want to phrase it. The items you link to don't act independently, but modify how we calculate calories in/calories out. In a sense, they actually rely on it. (Except possibly for water retention with some medications.)

For example, the gut flora bacteria study in Nature seems to show more calories being harvested - essentially increasing the "calories in" side.

Perhaps the argument is more about the best way to alter the equation, with some coming down on the "modify consumption at the mouth hole" as the most effective alteration possible, regardless of other modifiers.

But you brought up medications and gut flora. Do you think those are significant factors driving obesity, and, if so, how significant?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't think anyone is claiming that lack of exercise can't lead to obesity. The point you seem to be missing is that there is evidence that other environmental factors can also lead to obesity.

Weight gain will not happen if one consumes no more calories than they metabolize.

How much simpler can it get?


Whatever other factors are involved, have to be accounted and adjusted for.

I haven't missed your point at all. My participation in this thread has acknowledged your point many times; this post being the latest one to do so.

 

[jimbob]

It implies that one data set or both may have serious shortcomings. I see speculation about the observed effect being due to gut flora as premature given that what is being revealed is more likely due to observational flaws.

That's the simplest explanation, which would need to be addressed before any more esoteric ideas are put forward.

Even something as simple as having a difference in central heating temperature between the two instances could have an effect.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't think anyone is claiming that lack of exercise can't lead to obesity. The point you seem to be missing is that there is evidence that other environmental factors can also lead to obesity.

This is what really grinds my gears.

I don't think anyone doubts that what you posted is true.

However, just as someone may be born without arms, they have to learn to deal with it.

Ditto the chubbies - they just have to learn to deal with it. It is something that can be dealt with by a simple diet variation or more exercise.

Life's like that - everyone has different challenges, and if your chemical and microbial makeup means that you are more likely to be fat, die of heart disease, become an alcoholic, suffer from anxiety, or any other negative health consequence, you deal with it.

Or not.