The Fat Drug(mobile.nytimes.com)
mobile.nytimes.com
The Fat Drug
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/the-fat-drug.html
10 comments
There's another thing the article hand waves over: there is no actual evidence that antibiotics in feed have an effect on the animals' growth. [1]
It is yet another piece of farmer folklore, like hail cannons and routine castration. They are believed to work, without any scientific basis.
The thing is, farmers believe so strongly in this myth, that even in places where antibiotics are banned as a feed additive, they bribe vets to prescribe their livestock antibiotics for a variety of fictitious ailments, so they can keep giving it.
[1] http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/newsletter_33_3555326098....
It is yet another piece of farmer folklore, like hail cannons and routine castration. They are believed to work, without any scientific basis.
The thing is, farmers believe so strongly in this myth, that even in places where antibiotics are banned as a feed additive, they bribe vets to prescribe their livestock antibiotics for a variety of fictitious ailments, so they can keep giving it.
[1] http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/newsletter_33_3555326098....
This is even more serious: these morons are making the most revolutionary tool of modern medicine useless for no gain at all? It's crazy.
I thought the original reason for Antibiotics in feed, was so the farmer could save money on conditions (i.e the farm can be a little bit unhealthy for animals, as they are all on antibiotics... the growth effects were/are secondary...)
Not at all. Antibiotics are added to feed in sub clinical doses.
Your random reference is funded by the ASAS which has every reason to promote industry practices that keep costs down:
https://www.asas.org/membership-services/member-information/...
However, you're right. This is a poorly written and researched article, and uses a fair number of unsubstantiated "radical" discovery claims to make the article more exciting than it would have been had an actual scientist been tasked to write it. But it's the NY Times ... they've got an agenda too right? (i.e. make money off subscribers and advertisers)
However, you're right. This is a poorly written and researched article, and uses a fair number of unsubstantiated "radical" discovery claims to make the article more exciting than it would have been had an actual scientist been tasked to write it. But it's the NY Times ... they've got an agenda too right? (i.e. make money off subscribers and advertisers)
The take-away, however, is that the commonly understood models for relating microorganisms to health, such as the ones that guide doctors' decisions and health policy, do not predict that antibiotics would cause animals to grow more muscle and less fat -- or have any similar effect -- and are therefore likely to be incomplete or wrong in important ways. Most plausible amendments to the models that would cause them to predict the effects we observe in farm animals would also cause them to predict that antibiotics given to humans could have similarly complex and large effects.
I assumed that the article was going to talk about the antibiotics still being present in the meat of the farm animals that were given them, which would tie everything together. But if that was there I missed it.
It was mentioned, just the opposite of your assumption.
"By the time most meat reaches our table, it contains little or no antibiotics. So we receive our greatest exposure in the pills we take, rather than the food we eat."
"By the time most meat reaches our table, it contains little or no antibiotics. So we receive our greatest exposure in the pills we take, rather than the food we eat."
Correct, also saying "antibiotics fatten animals" is kind of a stretch, since Antibiotics mean a very large number of substances, divided by families.
So, yeah, in the article they mention which ones are used but to stretch that to "antibiotics" is a little too much.
So, yeah, in the article they mention which ones are used but to stretch that to "antibiotics" is a little too much.
> drugs can act like a kind of superfood to produce cheap meat
> Trash, it turned out, could be transformed into meat.
> pumping them with food and antibiotics. And yes, this did make the pigs fatter
> particularly in female mice: They gained about twice as much body fat as the control-group mice
This article is infuriating sloppy, as it starts out talking about meat (muscle), and then slides into talking about fat, as if they were the same thing, and it's not clear at all that the author is talking about the same things, using the wrong words, or talking about things that can be connected at all.
> Trash, it turned out, could be transformed into meat.
> pumping them with food and antibiotics. And yes, this did make the pigs fatter
> particularly in female mice: They gained about twice as much body fat as the control-group mice
This article is infuriating sloppy, as it starts out talking about meat (muscle), and then slides into talking about fat, as if they were the same thing, and it's not clear at all that the author is talking about the same things, using the wrong words, or talking about things that can be connected at all.
Agreed but the mice study also included a higher fat diet as well as antibiotics. Presumably farm animals are not being fed donuts and so that explains the implicit difference between the two situations adequately. Nonetheless, I agree that the distinction should be made more clear.
I'm wondering whether body builders are already dosing themselves on antibiotics? It seems like someone would have tried that a while ago and then built a minor religion out of it had it worked. A quick google search suggests that body builders tend to think that antibiotics will reduce muscle gain due to inhibiting digestion through killing off bacteria.
I'm wondering whether body builders are already dosing themselves on antibiotics? It seems like someone would have tried that a while ago and then built a minor religion out of it had it worked. A quick google search suggests that body builders tend to think that antibiotics will reduce muscle gain due to inhibiting digestion through killing off bacteria.
This is almost certainly bullshit. The poor quality of information in even the best newspapers is astounding! And it seems to almost always be at it's worst when it comes to medical issues.
How about some actual evidence? Not even a single peer reviewed study is mentioned. There are so many ways that this "idea" could be disproven with a simple study or even analysis of existing longitudinal studies. Or what about cross country comparisons, etc. And which of the dozens of popular antibiotics has this effect? Is it dosage relate? C'mon people at least do the minimal basic analysis before you suggest suggesting cause and effect.
This is exactly how all kinds of stupid ideas get into our heads. Not only do they waste our time but they can have real effects such as the continuing vaccine scare. Will this be the beginning of an antibiotics scare?
How about some actual evidence? Not even a single peer reviewed study is mentioned. There are so many ways that this "idea" could be disproven with a simple study or even analysis of existing longitudinal studies. Or what about cross country comparisons, etc. And which of the dozens of popular antibiotics has this effect? Is it dosage relate? C'mon people at least do the minimal basic analysis before you suggest suggesting cause and effect.
This is exactly how all kinds of stupid ideas get into our heads. Not only do they waste our time but they can have real effects such as the continuing vaccine scare. Will this be the beginning of an antibiotics scare?
>How about some actual evidence? Not even a single peer reviewed study is mentioned.
I agree. Some interesting points are made-- but it does all seem like a bit of handwaving.
>Will this be the beginning of an antibiotics scare?
Given the expanding prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria coupled with the shrinking pipeline of new antibiotic drugs, I think we should be at least a little worried. At this point, additional restraint in antibiotic use (especially agricultural) would be prudent.
I agree. Some interesting points are made-- but it does all seem like a bit of handwaving.
>Will this be the beginning of an antibiotics scare?
Given the expanding prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria coupled with the shrinking pipeline of new antibiotic drugs, I think we should be at least a little worried. At this point, additional restraint in antibiotic use (especially agricultural) would be prudent.
> Will this be the beginning of an antibiotics scare?
One would hope so.
One would hope so.
I thought recent research was struggling to reproduce the same growth promotion effects in low dose antibiotics...
My money's on "neither harmful, nor especially useful" for the long term scientific consensus here... but I admittedly have a natural inclination towards positions that alienate both sides in any dispute.
Here's one discussion for poultry, though still digging for the economic analysis for swine and cattle: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/
My money's on "neither harmful, nor especially useful" for the long term scientific consensus here... but I admittedly have a natural inclination towards positions that alienate both sides in any dispute.
Here's one discussion for poultry, though still digging for the economic analysis for swine and cattle: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804117/
Coke, that used to come in 6 ounce bottles, now comes in 24 and 32 ounce bottles. And rather than one once a week as a treat, we can have one or two each day. That's at least part of the problem.
If you are referring to causes of obesity, caloric excess is certainly part of the problem. I think the author is attempting to make the point that 'it's complicated'.
I think the question the author raises is a good one. We don't have a very good handle on what bacteria live in our bodies, much less what they all do. If we are destroying certain bacteria with antibiotics inside us, what does that mean for our bodies? There appears to be a long observed correlation between ingesting antibiotics and weight gain.
I think the question the author raises is a good one. We don't have a very good handle on what bacteria live in our bodies, much less what they all do. If we are destroying certain bacteria with antibiotics inside us, what does that mean for our bodies? There appears to be a long observed correlation between ingesting antibiotics and weight gain.
God I love the mobile version of nytimes. Please always post these.
This is so true.
News sites tend to be so "busy" and messy. I love the clean look of the mobile version. I really get what people mean by "mobile first design" now...
News sites tend to be so "busy" and messy. I love the clean look of the mobile version. I really get what people mean by "mobile first design" now...
The discussion here is terrific. With high
irony, this discussion misses the larger
point: The NYt is part of old media. As
for all old media, they are in the ad
business. As has long been common in old
media, the purpose of a 'story' is to grab
the readers by the heart, the gut, and below
the belt, always below the shoulders, never
between the ears.
In particular, the NYT wants story 'themes' so that they will 'condition' their readers to accept that 'stories' in these themes can be realistic. Then the NYT can write silly stories in the themes, have their readers take the stories seriously, and, thus, have some special and especially effective ways to grab their readers by the heart, the gut, and below the belt.
One of the themes is the 'environment' and a morality play of evil humans destroying the environment. That story goes back to the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky. Old religions of nature worship were similar. It's a special case of good versus evil, of sin, transgression, retribution, and, maybe, redemption, likely via sacrifice. Kill a lamb. Give up cars and walk. Etc.
In this story it's the evil, and dumb and greedy, farmers 'messing around with powerful, dangerous, hostile forces of nature with consequences they can't possibly understand' and, thus, being a threat to all of us.
So, the NYT pumps this stuff out. They have some conditioned, devoted readers who lap up this swill.
It's not science, news, reporting, or investigative journalism. Instead it's just a nasty manipulation.
Here at HN we would be fools to take such swill at face value and argue against its logic and science. The NYT doesn't care a hoot about logic or science but just the NYT manipulation and, then, their ad revenue.
In particular, the NYT wants story 'themes' so that they will 'condition' their readers to accept that 'stories' in these themes can be realistic. Then the NYT can write silly stories in the themes, have their readers take the stories seriously, and, thus, have some special and especially effective ways to grab their readers by the heart, the gut, and below the belt.
One of the themes is the 'environment' and a morality play of evil humans destroying the environment. That story goes back to the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky. Old religions of nature worship were similar. It's a special case of good versus evil, of sin, transgression, retribution, and, maybe, redemption, likely via sacrifice. Kill a lamb. Give up cars and walk. Etc.
In this story it's the evil, and dumb and greedy, farmers 'messing around with powerful, dangerous, hostile forces of nature with consequences they can't possibly understand' and, thus, being a threat to all of us.
So, the NYT pumps this stuff out. They have some conditioned, devoted readers who lap up this swill.
It's not science, news, reporting, or investigative journalism. Instead it's just a nasty manipulation.
Here at HN we would be fools to take such swill at face value and argue against its logic and science. The NYT doesn't care a hoot about logic or science but just the NYT manipulation and, then, their ad revenue.
What article were you reading? The entire point of this was to connect the fact that antibiotics enable unusual animal growth to the possibility that antibiotics were enabling the unusual human growth that has been occurring these past few decades. This is a reasonably hypothesis that I, at least, had never considered but in retrospect seems like something that obviously should be investigated further. There is nothing moralistic about this. Sure, the article mentions in passing about drug-resistant strains but this was not about painting farmers as greedy dumb and evil. If this is a click-bait link it's one that feeds on our self-image issues and on passing the blame to others and things like that, not on some morality play environmentalism. You can find that in other articles if you want.
You are very carefully, rationally, and objectively
taking the article at face value; I'm not granting
that the article deserves to be taken at face value.
One reason is, the article is from the NYT which has
burned me too often in the past. Another reason is
that this thread did a really good job showing some of
the severe rational weaknesses in the article -- the
writing and thought here were much better than from the
NYT.
So, I reject that the article from tbe NYT was just an effort at rationalism and information. That hypothesis rejected, I look for another explanation -- the NYT is trying to jerk me around. Do I have solid proof? No, but doing some beautiful rationalism in the face of some low grade rationalism from the NYT begins to look like here at HN we are being manipulated and are being foolish.
So, I reject that the article from tbe NYT was just an effort at rationalism and information. That hypothesis rejected, I look for another explanation -- the NYT is trying to jerk me around. Do I have solid proof? No, but doing some beautiful rationalism in the face of some low grade rationalism from the NYT begins to look like here at HN we are being manipulated and are being foolish.
The article explores hypotheses about what antibiotics might be doing to human health. A quotation from one of the expert sources sums up the conclusion: "'It’s still too early to draw definitive conclusions,' Dr. Cho said. 'And antibiotics remain a valuable resource that physicians use to fight infections.'" A couple years ago, a participant here shared a data chart from Scientific American that appears to no longer be at the original source but which has been mirrored[1] at the website of the journal Nature. The data chart points out that all-cause mortality has been steadily decreasing at all ages during my lifetime throughout the developed world. This is roughly the time span covered by the interesting article kindly submitted here. If human intake of antibiotics (which, after all, in many cases are "natural" substances emitted by fungi to guard against being destroyed by bacteria) has increased, as surely must be the case, it doesn't seem to be hurting us much.
On the specific issue of body weight, "normal" weight ranges for a given height were defined years ago on the basis of statistics on weight distributions in the general population. Oddly, current mortality and morbidity statistics tend to show that the persons with longest expected lifespans are not persons with "normal" weight as defined by body mass index but rather persons who are (slightly) "overweight." (This is however, most true for "overweight" persons who have good cardiovascular fitness.[2]) So if today's population in developed countries weighs more than populations a generation ago, the issue to look at is how many people have shifted from underweight to normal weight, how many from normal weight to overweight, and how many from overweight to obsesity. Obesity is definitely harmful to health. Moderate physical exercise, the kind I get by substituting walking or bicycling to do errands for driving, is surely good for pretty nearly everyone, independent of other lifestyle factors. But it has yet to be shown that antibiotic intake in the current amounts experienced by human beings in the developed world is harmful. There has been investigation in the last decade or so of the hypothesis that some antiobiotics may be protective against heart disease,[3] for instance, although maybe not all antibiotics have the same risk-benefit profile.
[1] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/195977021257786739/
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20118386
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387430/
On the specific issue of body weight, "normal" weight ranges for a given height were defined years ago on the basis of statistics on weight distributions in the general population. Oddly, current mortality and morbidity statistics tend to show that the persons with longest expected lifespans are not persons with "normal" weight as defined by body mass index but rather persons who are (slightly) "overweight." (This is however, most true for "overweight" persons who have good cardiovascular fitness.[2]) So if today's population in developed countries weighs more than populations a generation ago, the issue to look at is how many people have shifted from underweight to normal weight, how many from normal weight to overweight, and how many from overweight to obsesity. Obesity is definitely harmful to health. Moderate physical exercise, the kind I get by substituting walking or bicycling to do errands for driving, is surely good for pretty nearly everyone, independent of other lifestyle factors. But it has yet to be shown that antibiotic intake in the current amounts experienced by human beings in the developed world is harmful. There has been investigation in the last decade or so of the hypothesis that some antiobiotics may be protective against heart disease,[3] for instance, although maybe not all antibiotics have the same risk-benefit profile.
[1] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/195977021257786739/
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20118386
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387430/
RE your first point: I think everyone would agree that antibiotics are a net good, that their use should cause and correlate with declining mortality. But that wouldn't make it any less true that there could be second-order negative effects that are worth understanding and mitigating.
Was not aware of that "slightly overweight" finding, good stuff.
Was not aware of that "slightly overweight" finding, good stuff.
> Oddly, current mortality and morbidity statistics tend to show that the persons with longest expected lifespans are not persons with "normal" weight as defined by body mass index but rather persons who are (slightly) "overweight."
Does that mean "overweight" is a misnomer? Or are people wrong when they conflate a normal weight with a healthy weight?
Does that mean "overweight" is a misnomer? Or are people wrong when they conflate a normal weight with a healthy weight?
> anti-antibiotics
Wouldn't you call that simply "biotics"? Or maybe "pro-biotics"?
Wouldn't you call that simply "biotics"? Or maybe "pro-biotics"?
An anti-antibiotic would work against antibiotics instead of promoting biotics. Perhaps it would have a similar effect in the end, but the means are different.
For your consideration: http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pro-vs-ant...
No, the amount we're eating is making us fat.
Did you miss the bit where they used mice fed a calorie-rich diet as the control, and calorie-rich plus antibiotics as the experiment group? The latter got fatter.
Yes, yes, animal models != human results. But what about the experiments that were done on humans? The kids in Guatemala, or in Florida? The Navy sailors? I'm willing to bet they controlled for amount of food in those cases, and yet they all saw increased weight gain on antibiotics.
Net, that seems pretty indicative that it may not just be how much we're eating, and I think that's worth exploring further.
Yes, yes, animal models != human results. But what about the experiments that were done on humans? The kids in Guatemala, or in Florida? The Navy sailors? I'm willing to bet they controlled for amount of food in those cases, and yet they all saw increased weight gain on antibiotics.
Net, that seems pretty indicative that it may not just be how much we're eating, and I think that's worth exploring further.
There is a remarkable variety of gut flora.
Some is known to help people put on weight. Some is known to help people stay at a normal weight.
It's an interesting extra method to tackle obesity, because what society is trying so far doesn't seem to be working.
Some is known to help people put on weight. Some is known to help people stay at a normal weight.
It's an interesting extra method to tackle obesity, because what society is trying so far doesn't seem to be working.
"Society" has not been really trying anything; when we'll see it educating people in having a healthier lifestyle, that is, eating less junk food and doing sports, then it's possible to state that something is being tried.
The problem is that in a culture where junk food is cheap and pushed 24/7, there is no tradition of healthy nutrition, and there is much unbalance work/life, such education is clearly impossible.
The problem is that in a culture where junk food is cheap and pushed 24/7, there is no tradition of healthy nutrition, and there is much unbalance work/life, such education is clearly impossible.
Do you have any research to show that exercise is effective in helping people lose weight?
> Do you have any research to show that exercise is effective in helping people lose weight?
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this question. Epidemiologic studies tend to support the notion that in a practical setting (not an ideal laboratory), exercise is helpful for keeping weight off, but not really for losing weight.
So yeah, exercise is very important, but in the normal setting, it seems that exercise is counterbalanced by an increase in appetite, so it doesn't promote weight loss (but somehow does promote weight maintenance once weight is lost).
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this question. Epidemiologic studies tend to support the notion that in a practical setting (not an ideal laboratory), exercise is helpful for keeping weight off, but not really for losing weight.
So yeah, exercise is very important, but in the normal setting, it seems that exercise is counterbalanced by an increase in appetite, so it doesn't promote weight loss (but somehow does promote weight maintenance once weight is lost).
[deleted](1)
First of all, I've talked about healthier lifestyle; exercise is only half of it.
Second, and most important, I think you never lived in countries having different lifestyles, so that your idea on the subject is purely theoretical.
Nutrition research itself is not "wrong", but it's much more important to have a broader view and experience.
Nutritional "discoveries" have been coming and going for decades, and yet the situation didn't improve at all.
If you'll have a very simple walk around a city, and possibly in a supermarket, in a country where obesity is not epidemic, you will see immediately why the situation is such.
Second, and most important, I think you never lived in countries having different lifestyles, so that your idea on the subject is purely theoretical.
Nutrition research itself is not "wrong", but it's much more important to have a broader view and experience.
Nutritional "discoveries" have been coming and going for decades, and yet the situation didn't improve at all.
If you'll have a very simple walk around a city, and possibly in a supermarket, in a country where obesity is not epidemic, you will see immediately why the situation is such.
Are you trying to tell me that if a person begins to exercise more, with everything else being constant (calories), that there would be no weight loss?
I'm just asking if anyone has any research that shows exercise helps people lose weight.
Lots of things that seem obvious turn out to be mot true or much weaker than people thought when put through a proper trial.
To answer your specific question: muscle weighs more than fat, so if a person reduces fat percentage but increases muscle percentage will they lose weight or not? They'll be fitter and healthier, but will they be lighter?
Lots of things that seem obvious turn out to be mot true or much weaker than people thought when put through a proper trial.
To answer your specific question: muscle weighs more than fat, so if a person reduces fat percentage but increases muscle percentage will they lose weight or not? They'll be fitter and healthier, but will they be lighter?
No they won't be lighter, but they will still lose weight.
You unfortunately used the phrase in the literal meaning lose weight, while it is commonly used to indicate that someone is going to start reducing their fat percentage and improve the body shape. If the word phrase has a different meaning to you, fine, but whenever it was used in conversations I was involved in it had that definition, thus the confusion. You should have used the word mass and there would be no misunderstanding.
Exercise will definitely work, but it might not strictly lower your mass.
You unfortunately used the phrase in the literal meaning lose weight, while it is commonly used to indicate that someone is going to start reducing their fat percentage and improve the body shape. If the word phrase has a different meaning to you, fine, but whenever it was used in conversations I was involved in it had that definition, thus the confusion. You should have used the word mass and there would be no misunderstanding.
Exercise will definitely work, but it might not strictly lower your mass.
But do you have links to any research to show that people lose weight - that people lower their fat percentage?
Read through this thread. Sometimes people spout utter nonsense about nutrition. While "exercise makes you lose weight" sounds reasonable I'm keen to see what the research says.
So far someone told me that I'm talking shit and a bunch of people downvoted the post that requested research, but no one has provided any links to any research.
Read through this thread. Sometimes people spout utter nonsense about nutrition. While "exercise makes you lose weight" sounds reasonable I'm keen to see what the research says.
So far someone told me that I'm talking shit and a bunch of people downvoted the post that requested research, but no one has provided any links to any research.
This is happening because the message is: nutrition science is a very problematic field, and it's at the opposite of being straightforward and/or evident.
If you want this kind of researches, you will find by yourself lots of researches that support one thesis, then lots of researches supporting the opposite.
I've stopped reading nutrition research, because it's essentially a jumble of conflicting, unfounded theories.
The smartest thing one can do, for this specific question, is this: go to a sports club, then ask to the people: when you stop practicing your sport, do you get fatter? And conversely, when you started, or in periods of intensive training, do you get leaner?
If you're really curious about the subject, do that, you will get the answer.
I've been practicing sports for 20+ years, so I know the answer, and the experience of any person who's been practicing sport intensively for decades, is worth way more than a platoon of armchair academic nutritionits can possibly theorize.
This should remind that research (at least, this type of research) should be grounded and not detached from reality.
If you want this kind of researches, you will find by yourself lots of researches that support one thesis, then lots of researches supporting the opposite.
I've stopped reading nutrition research, because it's essentially a jumble of conflicting, unfounded theories.
The smartest thing one can do, for this specific question, is this: go to a sports club, then ask to the people: when you stop practicing your sport, do you get fatter? And conversely, when you started, or in periods of intensive training, do you get leaner?
If you're really curious about the subject, do that, you will get the answer.
I've been practicing sports for 20+ years, so I know the answer, and the experience of any person who's been practicing sport intensively for decades, is worth way more than a platoon of armchair academic nutritionits can possibly theorize.
This should remind that research (at least, this type of research) should be grounded and not detached from reality.
This is more fun: we have an extraordinary living specimen that demonstrate the effect in action: Michael Phelps
Unless you can find another way to explain why his 10,000 to 12,000 calorie diet - that included pancakes and sugary energy drinks - didn't result in massive weight gain, as it would in a sedentary person.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-di...
http://nypost.com/2008/08/13/phelps-pig-secret-hes-boy-gorge...
Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.
Unless you can find another way to explain why his 10,000 to 12,000 calorie diet - that included pancakes and sugary energy drinks - didn't result in massive weight gain, as it would in a sedentary person.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-di...
http://nypost.com/2008/08/13/phelps-pig-secret-hes-boy-gorge...
Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.
As far as I can tell, you're answering a question that nobody asked, one something like, "Does exercise burn calories?" We all know that's true. The question was, "Do you have any research to show that exercise is effective in helping people lose weight?"
As a fat guy who has run 15 or 20 races (including a triathlon) at this point and is training for another, my personal experience is that adding exercise doesn't help me lose weight.
As a fat guy who has run 15 or 20 races (including a triathlon) at this point and is training for another, my personal experience is that adding exercise doesn't help me lose weight.
Building and maintaining muscle consumes lots of calories in the long run. But then again, it takes lots of time and hard work too, so there's that. And of course, to actually gain any considerable muscle you need to eat relatively clean, so there's that too.
But of course, 90 % is diet. 10 % is hard work. And these numbers come from my hat.
Effort and discipline -- everybody knows those can get us anything, but the question is, how can we minimize effort and discipline and still get what we want?
But of course, 90 % is diet. 10 % is hard work. And these numbers come from my hat.
Effort and discipline -- everybody knows those can get us anything, but the question is, how can we minimize effort and discipline and still get what we want?
I'm against the mentality of Shit HN Says, but your comment really takes the cake.
I'm mean really... just read it out loud. :)
I'm mean really... just read it out loud. :)
No, really, research has been done. Go read it. Exercise does not help people lose weight.
It might make them healthier and fitter and less likely to die but it doesn't help them lose weight.
It might make them healthier and fitter and less likely to die but it doesn't help them lose weight.
Where do the calories to burn come from in those cases? If I consume 1500 calories per day and burn 2500, where does the other 1000 calories come from if not from fat stores? I guess at extreme caloric deficit the body would start breaking down muscles but that would still cause weight loss.
Any chance you can link to some of the research that shows where the rest of the energy comes from?
Any chance you can link to some of the research that shows where the rest of the energy comes from?
>> If I consume 1500 calories per day and burn 2500
I think the key insight is that the body is a complex, dynamic system. So the exercise required to burn 2500 calories will vary between individuals, and even for a single individual based on any number of factors. I won't profess to have all the answers here, but I don't think it's as simple as X calories per mile x Y miles = 2500 calories, where X comes from a table on the Internet. I think it's more of f(X) calories per mile, where f is a compound function that includes the composition & fluctuations of your gut biome and its effect on your metabolic rate. My foggy memories of the research are that in practice, solving f in the real world is quite difficult.
So while your calorie deficit theory works, in practice unless you're precisely measuring your compound (i.e. you plus your gut flora) metabolic rate in a lab, you don't actually have a way to know how many calories you're burning.
I think the key insight is that the body is a complex, dynamic system. So the exercise required to burn 2500 calories will vary between individuals, and even for a single individual based on any number of factors. I won't profess to have all the answers here, but I don't think it's as simple as X calories per mile x Y miles = 2500 calories, where X comes from a table on the Internet. I think it's more of f(X) calories per mile, where f is a compound function that includes the composition & fluctuations of your gut biome and its effect on your metabolic rate. My foggy memories of the research are that in practice, solving f in the real world is quite difficult.
So while your calorie deficit theory works, in practice unless you're precisely measuring your compound (i.e. you plus your gut flora) metabolic rate in a lab, you don't actually have a way to know how many calories you're burning.
In fact, exercise does help people lose weight. A hundred years of research has proven it. Go read it.
Your claim falls apart very quickly and very simply with basic math (and everybody can test this starting immediately):
Scenario: I'm a 225 pound, 6'2" male, basically healthy. 30 years old. I keep my diet constant at 2500 calories, and begin burning 750 calories per day through exercise. I will lose weight, and likely gain muscle (which will accelerate my body's natural caloric burn rate), and there's nothing that can prevent that from occurring in a healthy person.
Weight loss is a total calorie equation. Exercise forces your body to consume calories at a higher rate, reducing the total left for the body to store. It's that simple.
Another extraordinarily easy proof for this: Michael Phelps. Phelps was famously consuming 10,000 daily calories, lots of it trashy carbs like pancakes. His exercise routine - swimming countless hours per day - is the sole reason he didn't balloon to a thousand pounds. So run this test: consume 10,000 calories per day, do zero exercise, watch your weight explode upwards by 50 pounds in about a month; begin exercising heavily, enough to burn the excess calories, watch as your weight 'magically' falls.
Your claim falls apart very quickly and very simply with basic math (and everybody can test this starting immediately):
Scenario: I'm a 225 pound, 6'2" male, basically healthy. 30 years old. I keep my diet constant at 2500 calories, and begin burning 750 calories per day through exercise. I will lose weight, and likely gain muscle (which will accelerate my body's natural caloric burn rate), and there's nothing that can prevent that from occurring in a healthy person.
Weight loss is a total calorie equation. Exercise forces your body to consume calories at a higher rate, reducing the total left for the body to store. It's that simple.
Another extraordinarily easy proof for this: Michael Phelps. Phelps was famously consuming 10,000 daily calories, lots of it trashy carbs like pancakes. His exercise routine - swimming countless hours per day - is the sole reason he didn't balloon to a thousand pounds. So run this test: consume 10,000 calories per day, do zero exercise, watch your weight explode upwards by 50 pounds in about a month; begin exercising heavily, enough to burn the excess calories, watch as your weight 'magically' falls.
A lot of the questions in the science are about whether an unsupervised person adding exercise will end up with a calorie deficit.
There's no one serious that questions calories in vs calories out, but there are lots of people who question whether it is the right place to start, because of things like measurement difficulty and the relative unlikeliness of adherence to a given diet/exercise regime.
There's no one serious that questions calories in vs calories out, but there are lots of people who question whether it is the right place to start, because of things like measurement difficulty and the relative unlikeliness of adherence to a given diet/exercise regime.
Childhood obesity rates in the U.S. have been falling recently. So there is a correlation between society trying things and obesity going down. Who knows if there is a causal link.
And you're eating more because something tricks your body into not feeling full earlier.
Be it sugar, your gut bacteria, drinking liquid calories, hormons, [...]
Many reasons I'm sure.
Small soft drinks are now 20oz, restaurants give you triple what a serving size should be for most meals, buffets reign supreme, and snacks and high-calorie drinks are part of our daily routines and culture.
But that could be an effect of people being hungrier, rather than the cause.
I think the most convincing clue that there is something nonobvious going on is that lab animals are also getting fatter, despite being on a standardized and controlled diet (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.ht...).
I think the most convincing clue that there is something nonobvious going on is that lab animals are also getting fatter, despite being on a standardized and controlled diet (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.ht...).
[deleted]
~ nope ~
An overweight person can be eating caloric diet equal to a skinny person and not only not lose any fat, but also be painfully constantly hungry, and be technically starving themselves as their body leeches what it needs to run from their vital organs.
Meanwhile a fit person can be eating excess amounts of calories, but because they eat minimal carbs/sugars their body doesn't hold onto the extra calories they are eating (mostly eating fats, veg, meat) and they more easily lose body fat, and not only that but be constantly feeling full and never have hunger on their mind.
Obesity is an inflammatory disease. It's not as simple as the amount of food you eat irregardless of what you eat. What you eat is extremely important, and when you eat right portion size is less important because your body won't allow you to eat more than what you need.
An overweight person can be eating caloric diet equal to a skinny person and not only not lose any fat, but also be painfully constantly hungry, and be technically starving themselves as their body leeches what it needs to run from their vital organs.
Meanwhile a fit person can be eating excess amounts of calories, but because they eat minimal carbs/sugars their body doesn't hold onto the extra calories they are eating (mostly eating fats, veg, meat) and they more easily lose body fat, and not only that but be constantly feeling full and never have hunger on their mind.
Obesity is an inflammatory disease. It's not as simple as the amount of food you eat irregardless of what you eat. What you eat is extremely important, and when you eat right portion size is less important because your body won't allow you to eat more than what you need.
Eating at 75-80% of your TDEE will cause a person to lose weight. It's as simple as that. Only in an extreme case (very small, sedentary person) would that amount be lower than the 1200 Calorie starvation level.
And quite possibly starving themselves of nutrients which they need like I said. They might lose weight - muscle mass, but not body fat.
Calories in calories out is incorrect. A person who accepts this as truth is setting themselves up for painful failure.
Calories in calories out is incorrect. A person who accepts this as truth is setting themselves up for painful failure.
The problem is determining TDEE which is impacted by quite a few factors. You can go and get "averages" or guesses from web sites but the truth is it seems to be quite variable.
Alas, I have but one downvote to give for this empty dismissal.
We should go back to cooking with lard. Animal fat is far better than Sugar.
I think it's more lifestyle, which includes consumption, than it is just eating.
Second, antibiotics in feed are pretty much constant, while humans hardly ever take antibiotics. The article mentions children take antibiotics once a year on average, but the median must be very different from the mean. (I expect a few children take antibiotics very often, and most children take them very rarely.) In addition, if taking antibiotics once a year had the same increased growth rate effects as putting them in feed constantly, farmers would do that for the cost saving.
Overall, this article seems to pad out a hugely speculative idea to try to make it seem more plausible.
(I should know better than to get involved in a nutrition discussion on HN.)
[1] A random reference explaning how antibiotics improve meat quality by causing more protein and less fat: http://animalsmart.org/feeding-the-world/growth-promotant-us...