Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I came across a video on the causes of obesity that is amazing. It's an hour long, but if you think you are too busy to view the whole thing.... put this way, there is no way what you are doing today is more important than viewing this. Partially because it's extremely informative, but mostly because the work you are doing would probably subtract zero value from society if it were just not done at all. Back to the matter at hand...
I'm sure anything I write will not do it justice, but basically, the lecturer, Gary Taubes, points out that most people think obesity is caused by overeating and not enough exercise. But when you say that, what you are really doing is rewriting the First Law of Thermodynamics, while at the same time implying a causality that is not supported by the facts (and actually has numerous counter-examples), and ignoring the fact that the variables involved (eating and exercise) are not independent of each other.
In other words, if the problem was the level of eating and exercise itself, poor people that do manual labor would be skinny, while rich city elites who can afford to eat whatever they want and sit in front of a computer would be gigantic. There would be no cases of societies where infants are malnourished while the mothers are fat. These are both the exact opposite of reality.
So the problem is not the Energy_In and the Energy_Out. Those factors try to adjust themselves in response to each other to maintain your body weight. If you eat less you will be less active and have a slower metabolic rate (you will be colder). The problem is the other side of the equation, the obesity. Something causes your body to change it's idea of how much fat your should store.
Last year you didn't gain any weight? So that means you consumed and burned 2,500x365 calories = 912,500 calories. That means, if you think overeating causes weight gain, you had to titrate your diet to with .4% (3500 cals extra would've caused a pound of weight gain) to not gain any weight. It is ridiculous to think that you were that accurate on purpose. Clearly, your body adjusted your hunger and activity level to be in balance.
So what is the answer? I've already blathered enough. Watch the video.
I'm sure anything I write will not do it justice, but basically, the lecturer, Gary Taubes, points out that most people think obesity is caused by overeating and not enough exercise. But when you say that, what you are really doing is rewriting the First Law of Thermodynamics, while at the same time implying a causality that is not supported by the facts (and actually has numerous counter-examples), and ignoring the fact that the variables involved (eating and exercise) are not independent of each other.
In other words, if the problem was the level of eating and exercise itself, poor people that do manual labor would be skinny, while rich city elites who can afford to eat whatever they want and sit in front of a computer would be gigantic. There would be no cases of societies where infants are malnourished while the mothers are fat. These are both the exact opposite of reality.
So the problem is not the Energy_In and the Energy_Out. Those factors try to adjust themselves in response to each other to maintain your body weight. If you eat less you will be less active and have a slower metabolic rate (you will be colder). The problem is the other side of the equation, the obesity. Something causes your body to change it's idea of how much fat your should store.
Last year you didn't gain any weight? So that means you consumed and burned 2,500x365 calories = 912,500 calories. That means, if you think overeating causes weight gain, you had to titrate your diet to with .4% (3500 cals extra would've caused a pound of weight gain) to not gain any weight. It is ridiculous to think that you were that accurate on purpose. Clearly, your body adjusted your hunger and activity level to be in balance.
So what is the answer? I've already blathered enough. Watch the video.
