• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fat Logic

Pay attention to what's going on from ~1980-present:

american-sugar-consumption.jpg


obesity1.png
 
ThunderChunky said:
Pay attention to what's going on from ~1980-present:

[qimg]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4f411764eab8ea2d1b00001a-620-444/american-sugar-consumption.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/obesity1.png?w=595&h=446[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Larger people require more sustenance?
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that CICO is the sole factor. At least to my knowledge. What people are arguing against, and providing evidence for, is that other influences are not significantly explanatory factors, and are clung to as excuses.
 
Last edited:
ThunderChunky said:
Pay attention to what's going on from ~1980-present:

[qimg]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4f411764eab8ea2d1b00001a-620-444/american-sugar-consumption.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Context is everything. What happened to overall Calories during this period? As I remembered from reading this piece (which does not just address sugar but, more specifically, also fructose), it turns out that they probably went up. In fact, as a percentage of total Calories you might even see sugar drop a tiny little bit.

Maybe Calories matter. Imagine that!
 
cosmicaug said:
In fact, as a percentage of total Calories you might even see sugar drop a tiny little bit.
Click to expand...

Conclusion: obesity is caused by a deficit of simple sugars as a percentage of total Calories.

Nah, probably not. That's what can happen when you draw simplistic cherry picked correlation based conclusions, though.
 
cosmicaug said:
Conclusion: obesity is caused by a deficit of simple sugars as a percentage of total Calories.

Nah, probably not. That's what can happen when you draw simplistic cherry picked correlation based conclusions, though.
Click to expand...

Ha. Everyone agrees that the obesity epidemic is caused by too many people being too fat. :D
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
No one is saying that CICO is the sole factor. At least to my knowledge. What people are arguing against, and providing evidence for, is that other influences are not significantly explanatory factors, and are clung to as excuses.
Click to expand...

Yep. I still find it strange that the idea that obesity is caused by overeating a contentious issue.

Obesity rates have greatly increased in the last twenty-five years, along with calorie consumption. Is it oversimplifying to blame this solely on intake? Possibly.

Are there other factors in play? Maybe. But why have these factors only come up in the last generation, and only in places where people have abundant access to food? Even then, it's not everywhere. Japan and South Korea have very low obesity rates. In Switzerland, the rate is about a quarter of the US.

Even if the cause of obesity is not a change in food intake, and because of genetics/gut bacteria/conditions/planet X, so what? Do we sit back and admit that there's nothing to be done? Just accept all the negative impacts of obesity on health and quality of life? Or do we do something about it?
 
Skeptical Greg said:
You left out the environmental factors like sitting on the couch and watching TV or playing video games.

Your long list of environmental factors are hardly the main culprit in pre-pubescant children where obesity is a growing epidemic..
Click to expand...

I'm working on the assumption that a well designed study that controls for all those factors would, well, control for all those factors. But you know, they could be lying I guess.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

:applause:
 
Skeptical Greg said:
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.
Click to expand...

They weren't "purported". I didn't claim any of them as being a cause in the rise of obesity. I HYPOTHESIZED that they could POSSIBLY be CONTRIBUTORS to the increase in obesity. I suggested them as spit-balled ideas based on the study wherein apples-to-apples comparisons found an UNEXPLAINED change in obesity, where the factors of calories, macronutrients, exercise, etc. were CONTROLLED.

Nothing I said can reasonably be interpreted as "purported"
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Weight gain will not happen if one consumes no more calories than they metabolize.

How much simpler can it get?
Click to expand...

Well, there's that bit about "metabolize" that you keep glossing over. As if it's a simple, straightforward, and clean-cut thing.

But hey - I suppose if you want to lose weight, you could just eat nothing but protein. You'll "metabolize" it... but you'll lose weight too! Without having to reduce your caloric intake! It's magic!
 
Emily's Cat said:
They weren't "purported". I didn't claim any of them as being a cause in the rise of obesity. I HYPOTHESIZED that they could POSSIBLY be CONTRIBUTORS to the increase in obesity. I suggested them as spit-balled ideas based on the study wherein apples-to-apples comparisons found an UNEXPLAINED change in obesity, where the factors of calories, macronutrients, exercise, etc. were CONTROLLED.

Nothing I said can reasonably be interpreted as "purported"
Click to expand...

I don't think there was an over-claiming at all. The scientists are trying to answer questions exactly in the way we want them to.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well, there's that bit about "metabolize" that you keep glossing over. As if it's a simple, straightforward, and clean-cut thing.

But hey - I suppose if you want to lose weight, you could just eat nothing but protein. You'll "metabolize" it... but you'll lose weight too! Without having to reduce your caloric intake! It's magic!
Click to expand...

Why do you feel switching to the absurd is a valid argument?


What's next? The gasoline diet ?
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Only in the sense that there are other factors affecting energy efficiency depending on the subject.

No one in this thread has argued otherwise.

But, since it seems to need repeating: You cannot gain weight if you consume less calories than you manage to metabolize, regardless of the factors influencing your metabolism.
Click to expand...

Why does it seem that way to you? Has anyone in this thread argued, or even implied, that you can do so?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
No one is saying that CICO is the sole factor. At least to my knowledge. What people are arguing against, and providing evidence for, is that other influences are not significantly explanatory factors, and are clung to as excuses.
Click to expand...
:confused:

If your position is that none of the other influences, apart from CICO, are significantly explanatory factors, wouldn't that be arguing that CICO is the sole factor that determines weight loss/gain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom