Yeah, I was trying not to pull you ahead. But dealing with the big picture is more my style.
Taubes certainly does say things that seem to suggest that, but what it would even mean for that to be true?
I think he says it pretty directly actually. Good Calories, Bad Calories:
When Rony discussed positive energy balance, he compared the situation with what happens in growing children. “The caloric balance is known to be positive in growing children,” he observed. But children do not grow because they eat voraciously; rather, they eat voraciously because they are growing. They require the excess calories to satisfy the requirements of growth; the result is positive energy balance. The growth is induced by hormones and, in
particular, by growth hormone. This is the same path of cause and effect that would be taken by anyone who is driven to put on fat by a metabolic or hormonal disorder. The disorder will cause the excess growth—horizontal, in effect, rather than vertical. For every calorie stored as fat or lean tissue, the body will require that an extra calorie either be consumed or conserved. As a result, anyone driven to put on fat by such a metabolic or hormonal defect would be driven to excessive eating, physical inactivity, or some combination. Hunger and indolence would be side effects of such a hormonal defect, merely facilitating the drive to fatten. They would not be the fundamental cause. “Positive caloric balance may be regarded as the cause of fatness,” Rony explained, “when fatness is artificially produced in a normal person or animal by forced excessive feeding or forced rest, or both. But obesity ordinarily develops spontaneously; some intrinsic abnormality seems to induce the body to establish positive caloric balance leading to fat accumulation. Positive caloric balance would be, then, a result rather than a cause of the condition.”
Why We Get Fat includes more like the above, but the copy I have with me doesn’t allow for easy copy and pasting. But that’s the story basically. Yes, people who are fat are going to necessarily have had a positive caloric-intake balance from when they were not fat. But that doesn’t mean that the causal node to intervene on is a) how much a person eats or b)how much they exercise. Taubes’s claim is that the fat composition of your body is determined by your hormones, insulin in particular which is secreted based on your blood-sugar levels. Your body then overeats—or avoids burning calories—to compensate.
Illustrative of this effect are a wide variety of lab animal experiments that induce obesity by manipulating the animal’s endocrine system while controlling food intake.
Why don’t we start there. What do you find incoherent about that?
But children do not grow because they eat voraciously; rather, they eat voraciously because they are growing.
Taken literally, this is false. Children voraciously isn’t literally an epiphenomenon of their growth. If it were, children would still grow regardless of how little they eat. But in fact, not eating enough when you’re a kid stunts your growth.
Of course, one way to defend Taubes here is to assume a lot of his rhetoric isn’t meant to be taken literally. But the farther you go in that direction, the less he ends up disagreeing with mainstream nutrition, and the harder it is to make sense of the things he says about how awful mainstream nutrition science is supposed to be.
Taken literally, this is false. Children voraciously isn’t literally an epiphenomenon of their growth.
Where did “epiphenomenon” come from? I think you’re interpreting him far too uncharitably; he’s not saying “how much a child eats has no impact on their growth,” and indeed he’s saying the opposite. He’s saying that the causal chain starts with the growth hormone, which influences how much they eat, and then the hormone and how much they eat influence how much taller they grow. (And he’s unclear in the first sentence, but I’m pretty sure he does mean taller, not just larger.)
So it is; I agree with you that epiphenomenon is not a sensible description of the impact of eating on growth, and I disagree with Jack; I don’t think that’s a good description of Taubes’s passage there.
Taken literally, this is false. Children voraciously isn’t literally an epiphenomenon of their growth. If it were, children would still grow regardless of how little they eat. But in fact, not eating enough when you’re a kid stunts your growth.
It is literally true. Notice the tense. It’s not an effect of their growth it’s an effect of their being something that is growing—having a hormonal system that is aligned toward increasing size.
What are you not buying—that that’s what Taubes is saying? Because there’s some pretty direct cites here and also your pointless refusal to listen to what is a pretty clear explanation makes you look arbitrarily closed-minded.
Yeah, I was trying not to pull you ahead. But dealing with the big picture is more my style.
I think he says it pretty directly actually. Good Calories, Bad Calories:
Why We Get Fat includes more like the above, but the copy I have with me doesn’t allow for easy copy and pasting. But that’s the story basically. Yes, people who are fat are going to necessarily have had a positive caloric-intake balance from when they were not fat. But that doesn’t mean that the causal node to intervene on is a) how much a person eats or b)how much they exercise. Taubes’s claim is that the fat composition of your body is determined by your hormones, insulin in particular which is secreted based on your blood-sugar levels. Your body then overeats—or avoids burning calories—to compensate.
Illustrative of this effect are a wide variety of lab animal experiments that induce obesity by manipulating the animal’s endocrine system while controlling food intake.
Why don’t we start there. What do you find incoherent about that?
Taken literally, this is false. Children voraciously isn’t literally an epiphenomenon of their growth. If it were, children would still grow regardless of how little they eat. But in fact, not eating enough when you’re a kid stunts your growth.
Of course, one way to defend Taubes here is to assume a lot of his rhetoric isn’t meant to be taken literally. But the farther you go in that direction, the less he ends up disagreeing with mainstream nutrition, and the harder it is to make sense of the things he says about how awful mainstream nutrition science is supposed to be.
Where did “epiphenomenon” come from? I think you’re interpreting him far too uncharitably; he’s not saying “how much a child eats has no impact on their growth,” and indeed he’s saying the opposite. He’s saying that the causal chain starts with the growth hormone, which influences how much they eat, and then the hormone and how much they eat influence how much taller they grow. (And he’s unclear in the first sentence, but I’m pretty sure he does mean taller, not just larger.)
It was Jack who first used the word “epiphenomenal” upthread.
So it is; I agree with you that epiphenomenon is not a sensible description of the impact of eating on growth, and I disagree with Jack; I don’t think that’s a good description of Taubes’s passage there.
It is literally true. Notice the tense. It’s not an effect of their growth it’s an effect of their being something that is growing—having a hormonal system that is aligned toward increasing size.
Are you saying that children would grow eating nothing? If not, what’s with the word games?
Cells won’t grow from nothing unless they’re made of nothing.
Sorry, not buying it.
Not buying what? I’m just explaining the position and asking what you find incoherent about it.
What are you not buying—that that’s what Taubes is saying? Because there’s some pretty direct cites here and also your pointless refusal to listen to what is a pretty clear explanation makes you look arbitrarily closed-minded.