Agreed! People think it's so easy to determine what's true or not at scale. Do I want Facebook employees or (algorithms written by them) making that call? No way.
Maybe they shouldn't be in the political ad business if it's too hard to do it safely. Imagine if we said the same about driving cars or sale of high explosives or thwarting counterfeit cash.
"Honestly, Sam is, along with Steve Jobs, the founder I refer to most when I'm advising startups. On questions of design, I ask "What would Steve do?" but on questions of strategy or ambition I ask "What would Sama do?"
What I learned from meeting Sama is that the doctrine of the elect applies to startups. It applies way less than most people think: startup investing does not consist of trying to pick winners the way you might in a horse race. But there are a few people with such force of will that they're going to get whatever they want."
"The guy I picked to run my company belong in the same sentence as Steve Jobs." Of course you would say that while handing over the reins, to build confidence in him, and in your choice to choose him.
Im not saying its not true, just that their is other motive.
I used to believe in the refined-carb/insulin hypothesis of Taubes, and I even lost weight on it, but I've ditched that model in favor of Stephan's more complete food reward hypothesis - the idea that more rewarding and palatable foods lead to increased calories ingested in certain individuals and hence lead to fat gain.
One approach to weight loss then is to lower the reward value of the diet. One way to do that is low carb, another way is low fat, another way is vegetarian, another way to use gentler cooking methods and less seasoning, the list goes on. But many successful diets that people have used are very well explained by food reward.
edit> I also believe calorie counting and intermittent fasting are very powerful tools used in conjunction with a reduced reward diet. Eating less calories with minimal hunger and losing fat is the holy grail, and these tools are helping me do that in a very effective way.
Personally, I find Guyenet's reward hypothesis to be nothing more than a rebranding of typical fat-shaming ("just control what you eat, fatso; and why don't you exercise some more?"). However, that doesn't mean I don't think there is a psychological component to obesity; I just think that psychological component is mediated more by the gut biome than by anything else.
The biggest problem in nutrition research is that almost all the research is useless for drawing conclusions.
The second biggest problem is researchers wrap their identities around their pet theories, so they are immediately blinded to any competing hypotheses (note: I consider Guyenet in this category, but I also put Taubes in this category, and I think Taubes has done more to progress nutrition in the past 50 years than just about anybody else because he is loud and he doesn't tolerate crappy science).
The third biggest problem is people want to believe there is only one cause and therefore one solution. There is no question in my mind that the catastrophic insulin-flooded hormonal environment caused by "6-11 servings of grains a day in 5-6 small meals spread throughout the day" is a large percentage of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but it's not all of it. Literal addiction to sugar is a piece of it. Ignorance is part of it. Deceptive marketing and inappropriate marketing to kids is a part of it. The list goes on.
I like David Katz' analogy[1]:
What we're all up against—in our efforts to find health—may be likened to a flood. A vast, obesigenic flood. A flood of highly processed, energy-dense, nutrient-dilute, hyper-palatable, glow-in-the-dark, betcha'-can't-eat-just-one kind of foods; a flood of marketing dollars encouraging us to eat ever more of the very foods that propel us toward obesity and chronic disease; a flood of gadgets and gizmos that do all of the things muscles used to do; a flood of agricultural policies that subsidize corn to fatten cows rather than vegetables and fruits to vitalize people; a flood of obligations that leave no time for attention to health.
There are only two ways of dealing with this: build a levee to contain the flood and turn the tide, or captain a ship (or arc) across the floodwaters. One is all about us; the other is all about you.
I also like Yoni Freedhoff's comment about it, that people like to point to a sandbag (such as limiting marketing) and say "that won't solve the problem". It takes a lot of sandbags to hold back a flood[2].
Having spent 30 years obese before learning enough about biochemistry to be able to correct my metabolic disorder, one thing I know: we don't need any more fat shaming. It is deplorable and counter-productive. I'll just leave you with one woman's feelings about Guyenet and the realities of dealing with hormonally-induced eating[3]. She is one of the most knowledgable people I've read on-line, with a breadth of knowledge that I find humbling.
>Personally, I find Guyenet's reward hypothesis to be nothing more than a rebranding of typical fat-shaming ("just control what you eat, fatso; and why don't you exercise some more?")
So a particular claim about the state of the world, e.g. "obesity is caused by a psychological propensity to overconsume, which can be controlled", simply cannot be true, because it might cause some people to justify a dismissive and callous attitude towards people with obesity?
That is what the logic of your statement sounds like to me.
More like, "it's a theory that has significant gaps yet is able to bypass deep scrutiny because it panders to the common societal belief that fat people are all fat because they can't control themselves."
Food reward is a tributary in the flood (and a tributary will flood some houses), but Guyenet makes it out as "all the waters", and my belief is that people accept it uncritically because it resonates with society's view of fat people as gluttonous sloths with no self control.
But you are still equating "people are all fat because they can't control themselves" with "fat people as gluttonous sloths with no self control".
I'm not saying that a desire to look down on and judge other people doesn't bias people's views on obesity. But the main reason people believe that "people are all fat because they can't control themselves" is that there are so many individual stories of people losing weight by following a diet.
Losing weight is easy. I would hazard to say every obese person has lost weight, often times far more than they actually weigh. Maintaining weight loss is a completely different game, and one that is nearly impossible to do unless you address underlying hormonal disorders. The more unhealthy the starting point, the harder that is to do. And the standard reply of "just eat less and move more" is so useless as to be laughable.
With regards to fat shaming and "gluttonous sloths", Stephan did say: "I do not consider it a "moral failure" to eat unhealthy food that is under your nose, socially accepted and in some cases even considered healthy. I think one of the main problems is simply a lack of accurate information."
I never thought of food reward as typical fat shaming, but I suppose some of the "food reward friday" posts come across that way.
I'm reading through some posts and comments by "itsthewoo", and I'm trying to make sense of her experience. Thanks for pointing her out - food reward has worked really well for me and seems to explain a lot of data out there, but I suppose testing it with a large sample of humans (as opposed to rats) would help us see how universal its suggested interventions are.
Hi there, I'm an engineer at DeepDyve. I'm wondering how long your rental was for - was it a 30 day rental? And was 30 days too short to cite the article later? I'll talk to some people here, but we may be able to extend that period pretty easily.
I read through the first 3 of your links by taubes, which all seemed to be extremely verbose sophistry that don't address Guyanet's points at all.
At what point does Taubes actually address Guyanet's (clearly stated) claim, that if food is tastier, people eat more of it, consume more calories, and become fatter?
I would say that if you want people to read a relevant link, you should at least say "here are 6 links, all but $N are all red herrings." Have a little respect for the time of the reader.
I don't think he implied that. And I agree with his sentiment - for those of us who haven't made up our minds on Groupon, it's nice to see a view from the other side.
It's a big difference to risk starting a company vs climbing Mt Everest. That's actually a big mental block people have - they are afraid of risk, but starting a company or asking a cute girl out and failing is more of an ego hit than a threat to your existence.
There is an argument to be made that modern fruits have been bred to be sweeter, which is worth examining. Also, it is well known in the "paleo" community that fruit should be avoided when trying to get lean (~10-11% body fat for men) - and this is related to fructose and/or its affect on blood sugar. Last point is a type 1 diabetic, now doctor, eats no fruit and this was a very important step for him to maintain healthy blood sugars and get healthy - Dr. Richard Bernstein (he runs a diabetes clinic in NY). I believe that modern fruit eaten is large quantities isn't so benign.
Paul, do you see any role software could play in trying to resolve the dietary advice problem? There are lots of communities out there of diabetics and obese people improving their health through diet - in particular a low carb, medium protein, high fat diet. That's not proof on its own, but it's more compelling than looking at what people who have always been healthy eat (because it could just be good genes). Science and experiments still need to be a part of the solution, but it disturbs me how much bad science is out there.
