There’s pretty strong evidence that the rise in obesity is not primarily behavioral. For example, here. If obesity is the result of a collective depletion of willpower, than why is obesity increasing in animals? Why does it depend on elevation?
Furthermore, the curves that you present are way too steep. The average American puts on about 1 pound/year, which suggests that our bodies are more or less in homeostasis. The question is, what long-term trend is pushing this homeostasis upwards?
>Furthermore, the curves that you present are way too steep. The average American puts on about 1 pound/year,
Because they’re already in their higher weight state. The graph was a hypothetical 1980 person being moved to 2010 and upping their intake. When we see studies putting people in metabolic wards we find that a 500 calorie a day surplus corresponds to a 1 lb a week weight gain, which is consistent with my curves
>There’s pretty strong evidence that the rise in obesity is not primarily behavioral
How are you defining behavioral? The body is pretty efficient at turning extra calories into weight, a disease can’t make you gain 20lbs by processing the food more. It can make you lose weight by processing the food less. The only mechanism a contaminant would have to raise your weight is by influencing your behavior so you spend less calories or intake more. There is no other mechanism by which a contaminant would work. It /must/ include an intermediate behavioral step
The body is pretty efficient at turning extra calories into weight
This seems like a strange claim to make, considering the results of various controlled overfeeding studies. (It’s also a strange framing on top of that.) Do you have any sources backing up the quoted claim?
By “not primarily behavioral” I mean the exact opposite of
The simple things are the answer, the question is just how to eat less and move more without making yourself miserable.
While “eat less exercise more” may be fine advice at a personal level, it isn’t a sufficient answer to the society-wide epidemic of obesity that we currently face. If the root cause turns out to be pollution or microplastics or vegetable oil or whatever it is, calls to collectively increase our will-power instead of addressing this root cause are largely counterproductive virtue-signaling.
While “eat less exercise more” may be fine advice at a personal level, it isn’t a sufficient answer to the society-wide epidemic of obesity that we currently face.
I disagree, although I found the evidence in the linked posts to be rather weak. When I think of “calories in, calories out” I don’t immediately think, “Therefore we should push for voluntary dieting changes.” There are likely involuntary and external factors related to our consumption, which act through the CICO mechanism, driving the obesity crisis.
It’s a bit like if we were debating the “income minus spending theory of wealth.” One hand, you’re right that “just spend less” is unhelpful advice for people. However, the theory is not actually an incorrect one. If people are actually getting poorer, then it’s either because their incomes went down, or their spending went up, or both. Denying the basic mechanism won’t lead to a solution. It will just make you confused forever.
I don’t quite understand what you mean. National wealth works just like individual wealth. You linked to the Wikipedia page on “Austerity” (presumably because you think such policies do not work) but I don’t understand your point. Do you think either spending cuts or tax increases usually never increase national wealth? I also don’t think those things are equivalent to national income or expenses.
Yes, cutting spending/raising taxes (aka austerity) is anti-correlated with GDP growth.
My point is more so that micro vs macro policy (whether economic or health-related) cannot be reduced to simply “add up the parts”. To take a specific example, the push to make us all eat margarine instead of butter because it contains less saturated fat was almost certainly a mistake.
The “income minus spending theory of wealth” when applied to states implies that if the state cuts spending then the economy would be better. But that’s definitely not true always (for example, research spending), but in the general sense it’s also not true according to some macroeconomic models (like Modern Monetary Theory). Since the state’s wealth is the economy as a whole, not it’s balance sheet, modeling income as taxes and spending as government expenditures doesn’t line up. Increasing taxes decreases the size of the economy but prevents inflation from occurring. Government expenditures increases the size of the economy by stimulating it but can cause inflation. A state increases its wealth by having expenditures and taxes work together correctly to stimulate the economy without unreasonable levels of inflation. That’s leaving aside trade with foreign countries, but it works fairly similarly.
There’s pretty strong evidence that the rise in obesity is not primarily behavioral. For example, here. If obesity is the result of a collective depletion of willpower, than why is obesity increasing in animals? Why does it depend on elevation?
Furthermore, the curves that you present are way too steep. The average American puts on about 1 pound/year, which suggests that our bodies are more or less in homeostasis. The question is, what long-term trend is pushing this homeostasis upwards?
>Furthermore, the curves that you present are way too steep. The average American puts on about 1 pound/year,
Because they’re already in their higher weight state. The graph was a hypothetical 1980 person being moved to 2010 and upping their intake. When we see studies putting people in metabolic wards we find that a 500 calorie a day surplus corresponds to a 1 lb a week weight gain, which is consistent with my curves
>There’s pretty strong evidence that the rise in obesity is not primarily behavioral
How are you defining behavioral? The body is pretty efficient at turning extra calories into weight, a disease can’t make you gain 20lbs by processing the food more. It can make you lose weight by processing the food less. The only mechanism a contaminant would have to raise your weight is by influencing your behavior so you spend less calories or intake more. There is no other mechanism by which a contaminant would work. It /must/ include an intermediate behavioral step
This seems like a strange claim to make, considering the results of various controlled overfeeding studies. (It’s also a strange framing on top of that.) Do you have any sources backing up the quoted claim?
By “not primarily behavioral” I mean the exact opposite of
While “eat less exercise more” may be fine advice at a personal level, it isn’t a sufficient answer to the society-wide epidemic of obesity that we currently face. If the root cause turns out to be pollution or microplastics or vegetable oil or whatever it is, calls to collectively increase our will-power instead of addressing this root cause are largely counterproductive virtue-signaling.
I disagree, although I found the evidence in the linked posts to be rather weak. When I think of “calories in, calories out” I don’t immediately think, “Therefore we should push for voluntary dieting changes.” There are likely involuntary and external factors related to our consumption, which act through the CICO mechanism, driving the obesity crisis.
It’s a bit like if we were debating the “income minus spending theory of wealth.” One hand, you’re right that “just spend less” is unhelpful advice for people. However, the theory is not actually an incorrect one. If people are actually getting poorer, then it’s either because their incomes went down, or their spending went up, or both. Denying the basic mechanism won’t lead to a solution. It will just make you confused forever.
FWIW, I also think the “income minus spending theory of wealth” works great for individuals and literally backwards for economies as a whole.
I don’t quite understand what you mean. National wealth works just like individual wealth. You linked to the Wikipedia page on “Austerity” (presumably because you think such policies do not work) but I don’t understand your point. Do you think either spending cuts or tax increases usually never increase national wealth? I also don’t think those things are equivalent to national income or expenses.
Yes, cutting spending/raising taxes (aka austerity) is anti-correlated with GDP growth.
My point is more so that micro vs macro policy (whether economic or health-related) cannot be reduced to simply “add up the parts”. To take a specific example, the push to make us all eat margarine instead of butter because it contains less saturated fat was almost certainly a mistake.
The “income minus spending theory of wealth” when applied to states implies that if the state cuts spending then the economy would be better. But that’s definitely not true always (for example, research spending), but in the general sense it’s also not true according to some macroeconomic models (like Modern Monetary Theory). Since the state’s wealth is the economy as a whole, not it’s balance sheet, modeling income as taxes and spending as government expenditures doesn’t line up. Increasing taxes decreases the size of the economy but prevents inflation from occurring. Government expenditures increases the size of the economy by stimulating it but can cause inflation. A state increases its wealth by having expenditures and taxes work together correctly to stimulate the economy without unreasonable levels of inflation. That’s leaving aside trade with foreign countries, but it works fairly similarly.