Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

What's a carb? A car part? What's a macro? A type of camera lens?

Moderator: Manveer

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#1

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:17 am

Here's an opinion piece posted on September 13 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, entitled "The carbohydrate-insulin model: a physiological perspective on the obesity pandemic". The article is free to access and read.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-a ... 70/6369073

In it, the authors advocate that the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity explains the mechanism of the obesity epidemic.

And here is Layne Norton's rebuttal. It's pretty savage imo.


User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#2

Post by mbasic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:28 am

alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:17 am
And here is Layne Norton's rebuttal. It's pretty savage imo.
you serious ?

seems like a click bait video so far

he acts like they are saying the earth in flat or something

"The CIM provides a conceptual framework with testable hypotheses for how various modifiable factors influence energy balance and fat storage. Rigorous research is needed to compare the validity of these 2 models, which have substantially different implications for obesity management, and to generate new models that best encompass the evidence."
Last edited by mbasic on Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TimK
Much Mustache
Posts: 2978
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:03 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Age: 39

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#3

Post by TimK » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:29 am

Someone posted a link to this study in the SBS facebook group the other day and Greg Nuckols went on a rampage tearing it apart as well.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#4

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:31 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:28 am
alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:17 am
And here is Layne Norton's rebuttal. It's pretty savage imo.
you serious ?

seems like a click bait video so far
Absolutely!

It's pretty obvious that the authors ignore all kinds of evidence showing the CIM is repeatedly falsified.

From the paper,

"Some populations, such as in Asia, consume high-GL diets, yet they have relatively low rates of obesity

The diets of subsistence farming societies were historically based on inexpensive, high-carbohydrate grains and tubers without the metabolic consequences suggested by the CIM. However, such ecological observations are subject to multiple interpretations, among them that people in these rural societies had high levels of occupational physical activity and restricted food availability, both of which might offset dietary influences on weight gain. Among Chinese with recent access to high-GL/high-sugar diets, obesity and metabolic disease have reached epidemic proportions (159). Beyond macronutrient changes, the “nutrition transition” in developing nations beginning in the 1970s (coincident with the low-fat diet era in the United States and Europe) is typified by replacement of traditional carbohydrates with processed starches and sugars that have a higher GL (160). In any event, many dietary and nondietary factors undoubtedly contribute to these trends."

First bolding:
So, CIM cannot explain why some Asian populations have lower rates of obesity, but the EBM can?

Second bolding:
Wait a minute. If the CIM is the model that explains the obesity epidemic, how can any nondietary factor contribute?

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#5

Post by mbasic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:59 am

IDK, I view it as spectrum and not in absolutes.
If the paper is saying that, they are indeed wrong.

-------------------

from the paper:
During the last century, 2 models addressing environmental causes of obesity have emerged. In the dominant energy balance model (EBM), energy-dense, tasty, modern processed foods drive a positive energy balance through increased intake, and thereby result in fat deposition. In the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM), a crucial effect of diet is metabolic, by influencing substrate partitioning. Rapidly digestible carbohydrates, acting through insulin and other hormones, cause increased fat deposition, and thereby drive a positive energy balance.
Its hard for me to disagree with either of those models as worded above.
I'm getting lost here as it seems there's some kind of chicken-or-egg-which-came-first-thing going on with the "drive a positive energy balance".

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#6

Post by 5hout » Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:43 am

I read that paragraph as "nondietary factors [i.e. people going from being starving peasants doing hard labor with extremely controlled food in take" allowed people to go from a well controlled (via items 3 and 8 in Fig 1, specifically high activity levels relative to energy usage) carb based diet to a poorly controlled carb based diet. This might be given them too much benefit of the doubt.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#7

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:29 am

TimK wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:29 am Someone posted a link to this study in the SBS facebook group the other day and Greg Nuckols went on a rampage tearing it apart as well.
Holy Carp! I forgot that @gnuckols was a member here. Greg, I don't do facebook or other typical social media. Do you have a link to an article on your site about the above paper?

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#8

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:36 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:59 am IDK, I view it as spectrum and not in absolutes.
If the paper is saying that, they are indeed wrong.

-------------------

from the paper:
During the last century, 2 models addressing environmental causes of obesity have emerged. In the dominant energy balance model (EBM), energy-dense, tasty, modern processed foods drive a positive energy balance through increased intake, and thereby result in fat deposition. In the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM), a crucial effect of diet is metabolic, by influencing substrate partitioning. Rapidly digestible carbohydrates, acting through insulin and other hormones, cause increased fat deposition, and thereby drive a positive energy balance.
Its hard for me to disagree with either of those models as worded above.
I'm getting lost here as it seems there's some kind of chicken-or-egg-which-came-first-thing going on with the "drive a positive energy balance".
Honestly, I feel like the proponents of the CIM fall into one of two categories. 1) Well-intentioned but actually harmful since the totality of evidence does not support CIM, and 2) charlatans trying to make money on those susceptible to the claims of the CIM.

It would actually be pretty simple for proponents of the CIM to prove its validity. Perform a study where they had categories of people based upon how many grams of simple carbohydrates they eat in a day--make the categories something <20g, 50g, 100g, 150g, ..., 400g or more. In addition to these categories, control for overall calories. So have essentially 3 more categorical variables: hypocaloric, eucaloric, and hypercaloric sections.

If the CIM holds, then regardless of the calorie section, you should see a dose-dependent relationship between carb intake and weight gain.

However, there are already studies looking at sucrose and fructose that show even you feed someone 100g of sucrose/fructose a day, they don't gain weight in a hypocaloric diet. So somehow, they have to show that to be false.

Additionally, why don't they call it the CPIM--carbohydrate-protein insulin model? Protein ingestion also causes insulin secretion into the bloodstream.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#9

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am

5hout wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:43 am I read that paragraph as "nondietary factors [i.e. people going from being starving peasants doing hard labor with extremely controlled food in take" allowed people to go from a well controlled (via items 3 and 8 in Fig 1, specifically high activity levels relative to energy usage) carb based diet to a poorly controlled carb based diet. This might be given them too much benefit of the doubt.
Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper by Pontzer showing that the TDEE of this hunter-gatherer tribe is essentially the same as sedentary Americans, "Energy expenditure and activity among Hadza hunter-gatherers".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25824106/

If you can't view it, search Sci-hub for the DOI 10.1002/ajhb.22711.

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#10

Post by 5hout » Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:47 am

alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am
5hout wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:43 am I read that paragraph as "nondietary factors [i.e. people going from being starving peasants doing hard labor with extremely controlled food in take" allowed people to go from a well controlled (via items 3 and 8 in Fig 1, specifically high activity levels relative to energy usage) carb based diet to a poorly controlled carb based diet. This might be given them too much benefit of the doubt.
Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper by Pontzer showing that the TDEE of this hunter-gatherer tribe is essentially the same as sedentary Americans, "Energy expenditure and activity among Hadza hunter-gatherers".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25824106/

If you can't view it, search Sci-hub for the DOI 10.1002/ajhb.22711.
Very interesting method there, and cool. I think it's a definite weakness of the CIM if there only answer is "well all traditional cultures that are high carb are food limited and have high physical activity" because not everyone is an overworked peasant (tragically).

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#11

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:02 am

5hout wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:47 am Very interesting method there, and cool. I think it's a definite weakness of the CIM if there only answer is "well all traditional cultures that are high carb are food limited and have high physical activity" because not everyone is an overworked peasant (tragically).
Pontzer was recently on the BBM podcast, episode 151 I believe. It was definitely an interesting listen, and I want to pick up his recent book, Burn, from the library.

gnuckols
Registered User
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:19 pm

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#12

Post by gnuckols » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:07 am

alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:29 am
TimK wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:29 am Someone posted a link to this study in the SBS facebook group the other day and Greg Nuckols went on a rampage tearing it apart as well.
Holy Carp! I forgot that @gnuckols was a member here. Greg, I don't do facebook or other typical social media. Do you have a link to an article on your site about the above paper?
I didn't write an article. It was just some hot takes after an initial skim.

The biggest thing that drove me crazy about the paper is that they're presenting the EBM and the CIM as if they're two completely different models (even referring to this as a "paradigm clash" in their conclusions), but this particular conception of the CIM is entirely compatible with the EBM. They're just arguing that their pet bogeyman (high-GL meals) may have a large influence energy intake.

And like, sure? Maybe it does? Idk. Seems like a fairly straightforward argument you could make in brief communication, rather than writing a book about it.

I think they only presented it the way that they did to obscure the fact that the evidence has not supported prior, more extreme version of the CIM, which has necessitated that they move the goal posts so far that their pet theory is fully compatible with the EBM, which they're ostensibly arguing against.

I should also admit that I've met and hung out with Taubes a bit (we spoke at the same conference a few years back), and he's one of the most insufferable, least pleasant people I've ever had the misfortune of being around, so I may have a bit of bias when evaluating his work. The same probably applies to Layne as well (he was also speaking at that conference).

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#13

Post by mbasic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 am

alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:36 am
mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:59 am IDK, I view it as spectrum and not in absolutes.
If the paper is saying that, they are indeed wrong.

-------------------

from the paper:
During the last century, 2 models addressing environmental causes of obesity have emerged. In the dominant energy balance model (EBM), energy-dense, tasty, modern processed foods drive a positive energy balance through increased intake, and thereby result in fat deposition. In the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM), a crucial effect of diet is metabolic, by influencing substrate partitioning. Rapidly digestible carbohydrates, acting through insulin and other hormones, cause increased fat deposition, and thereby drive a positive energy balance.
Its hard for me to disagree with either of those models as worded above.
I'm getting lost here as it seems there's some kind of chicken-or-egg-which-came-first-thing going on with the "drive a positive energy balance".
Honestly, I feel like the proponents of the CIM fall into one of two categories. 1) Well-intentioned but actually harmful since the totality of evidence does not support CIM, and 2) charlatans trying to make money on those susceptible to the claims of the CIM.

It would actually be pretty simple for proponents of the CIM to prove its validity. Perform a study where they had categories of people based upon how many grams of simple carbohydrates they eat in a day--make the categories something <20g, 50g, 100g, 150g, ..., 400g or more. In addition to these categories, control for overall calories. So have essentially 3 more categorical variables: hypocaloric, eucaloric, and hypercaloric sections.

If the CIM holds, then regardless of the calorie section, you should see a dose-dependent relationship between carb intake and weight gain.
don't disagree

However, there are already studies looking at sucrose and fructose that show even you feed someone 100g of sucrose/fructose a day, they don't gain weight in a hypocaloric diet. So somehow, they have to show that to be false.
cite/list one of these please
Additionally, why don't they call it the CPIM--carbohydrate-protein insulin model? Protein ingestion also causes insulin secretion into the bloodstream.
#1- I think it has to do with Glucagon. I am no expert in that but you can google. IIRC, glucagon kinda moderates the insulin response with a high protein (low carb) bolus. The blood glucose level will remain low.

#2- And this is just me spit-balling, but the insulin spike from say a high-protein-ultra-low-carb is NOT accompanied with a bunch of glucose. If your body isn't seeing the (high amount of) glucose in the bloodstream, the insulin should, ideally, come down a lot faster than if the blood stream is full of glucose. It would seem that: A-there wouldn't be much glucose around to push into fat storage. and B-the insulin 'spike' would come down a lot faster.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#14

Post by mbasic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:42 am

alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper ...
Are you/paper saying the Hadza eat a high (highly weighted) carbohydrate diet and are skinny because of high TDEE?

User avatar
5hout
Registered User
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:32 am

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#15

Post by 5hout » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:00 am

mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:42 am
alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper ...
Are you/paper saying the Hadza eat a high (highly weighted) carbohydrate diet and are skinny because of high TDEE?
The paper is saying (if I have understood it correctly) that people in hunter-gatherer conditions eating a high GL diet essentially conserve activity levels. So the more intense activity they do, the more time they spend chilling to balance it out.

@alek , I'll check that podcast out. I was thinking "everytime I listen to the SBS podcast I feel like Pontzer's name is mentioned so it'll be interesting to hear him speak". Of course then there is a wild gnuckols sighting thus bringing the weird synchronicity circle to a close.

User avatar
mbasic
Registered User
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:06 am
Age: 104

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#16

Post by mbasic » Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:44 am

5hout wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:00 am The paper is saying (if I have understood it correctly) that people in hunter-gatherer conditions eating a high GL diet essentially conserve activity levels. So the more intense activity they do, the more time they spend chilling to balance it out.

Along those same lines (I think) I would posit that the agricultural lifestyle of the pre-industrial era (growing food for one's own family, or your village/town) might have not been the self imposed slave-labor made out to be ..... at least all year round.

Especially in context of non-commercial farming ... a 3rd world setting .... and dry farming (working off of rain, i.e. not irrigated ).

This is an oversimplification: but a lot of time was (probably) simply spent watching it grow and tending to animals.
A lot of climates you can't do shit for large portions of the year ... (sun, warmth, water, etc)

But I really do not know ....

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#17

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:18 pm

mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 am
However, there are already studies looking at sucrose and fructose that show even you feed someone 100g of sucrose/fructose a day, they don't gain weight in a hypocaloric diet. So somehow, they have to show that to be false.


cite/list one of these please
Here's the article I initially thought of when writing that statement, "The effects of four hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup on weight loss and related parameters".
https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 2891-11-55

One group received 20% of calories via fructose and another group received 20% of calories via sucrose. Now I'm not sure why I said 100g of sucrose/fructose as I can't find an exact amount of calories with respect to the 20%. From Table 2, it shows that both 20% groups ate 95.8 +/- 20 and 97.8 +/- 21 grams of added sugar per day. Based upon the calorie intake of ~1617 and ~1737 calories respectively in those two groups, that would mean there were about 81g of fructose added in the 20% fructose group and 87g of sucrose added in the 20% sucrose group. What other added sugars made up the difference? I don't know.

Everyone lost weight and saw nearly all metabolic measures improve.

Here's an article about feeding up to 90th percentile of sucrose and fructose in a eucaloric diet by the same lead author, "The Effects of Fructose-Containing Sugars on Weight, Body Composition and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors When Consumed at up to the 90th Percentile Population Consumption Level for Fructose"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145300/

Another article from the same lead author, "The Effect of Normally Consumed Amounts of Sucrose or High Fructose Corn Syrup on Lipid Profiles, Body Composition and Related Parameters in Overweight/Obese Subjects".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967182/

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#18

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:25 pm

mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:42 am
alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper ...
Are you/paper saying the Hadza eat a high (highly weighted) carbohydrate diet and are skinny because of high TDEE?
No, I believe Pontzer is saying that their TDEE is similar to sedentary Americans. It's that the Hadza BMR is actually lower.

At least in the podcast, Pontzer is saying that the body regulates its bmr in anticipation of active energy expenditure. So if you are regularly expending 500 calories a day doing activity, the body will down-regulate bmr in anticipation of that 500 calorie expenditure.

The mechanism by which this happens he proposes is as such: in anticipation of the activity, the body will reserve some calories that would normally go to a body process so that it has them when you do your activity. One of the body processes that doesn't get the calories, presumed by Pontzer, is the inflammatory process. This presumption is the "what regular exercise is good for"--it causes your body to expend fewer calories on the inflammatory processes.

He calls this the Constrained Energy Model.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#19

Post by alek » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:27 pm

5hout wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:00 am
mbasic wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:42 am
alek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:42 am Maybe, but there are cultures other than Asians that eat a predominantly carbohydrate diet with low incidence of obesity. The Hadza have been well studied. Here's a paper ...
Are you/paper saying the Hadza eat a high (highly weighted) carbohydrate diet and are skinny because of high TDEE?
The paper is saying (if I have understood it correctly) that people in hunter-gatherer conditions eating a high GL diet essentially conserve activity levels. So the more intense activity they do, the more time they spend chilling to balance it out.

@alek , I'll check that podcast out. I was thinking "everytime I listen to the SBS podcast I feel like Pontzer's name is mentioned so it'll be interesting to hear him speak". Of course then there is a wild gnuckols sighting thus bringing the weird synchronicity circle to a close.
This might be it, too. I haven't given those particular papers a close enough read.

User avatar
JohnHelton
Registered User
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:17 pm
Location: Bozeman, MT
Age: 51
Contact:

Re: Over Eating Doesn't Cause Obesity?

#20

Post by JohnHelton » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:03 pm

I don't enjoy Layne's delivery. However, it seems to be working for him from a media standpoint. I do agree with the points he makes. I read Why We Get Fat by Taubes shortly after it was written in 2010 and bought it hook line and sinker. And I was successful trimming weight every time that I ate keto...so it had to be right. I continued to believe it until I started to receive coaching and nutrition advice from Dr. Feigenbaum in the fall of 2017. He put me on a IIFYM diet. I was very skeptical, but I gave it a shot as I was paying him. I was eating way more carbs than I was comfortable with, and I started to lose weight. It worked perfectly, and I was able to eat all the foods that I enjoyed. I've come to realize that it wasn't the types of food that I was eating, but it was the amount of food that I was eating. I was eating less food on keto, and I was eating less food when I started counting my macros. I also thought the only way to control my hunger was by not eating carbs. This turned out to be false as well. I just had to eat enough protein (which I needed anyway for muscle), and my hunger was controlled. Long story short: I have been in both camps and tried both. They both work. However, eating a balanced diet is more sustainable for me, because I like all the foods. One just has to determine what works for them and stick with it. I've heard Layne say that before, but he doesn't do it often because he is so busy fighting.

Post Reply