Banner
    Social Authoritarians Can't Cure Obesity In America, But Science Can
    By Hank Campbell | July 3rd 2012 01:58 PM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    What causes obesity?  Obviously ingesting more calories than a person burns leads to weight gain but what really causes obesity?

    Will banning Big Gulps, Happy Meals and Trans fats make people thin? (1)

    While a modern 'ban, legislate and micromanage' mentality about food has taken hold on the coasts of the US, obesity researchers in the middle, at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, contend handing over even more control of choice to social authoritarians won't work; we instead have to show people that just because you can eat a lot of junk food doesn't mean you should. And go for a walk once in a while.

    Widespread food restrictions are a recent inexplicable modern cultural phenomenon, right up there with throwing parties to get more people to sign up for food stamps(2). The science reality is that each of us has an 'energy balance' where we don't gain or lose weight. Yes, it stinks that some people can eat rubbish and never gain weight but some people are tall and some people never go bald and some people are smarter than others too. We can't legislate those things (not even the super-smart people in Frisco or New York City can) but finding a "regulated zone", as the obesity researchers put it, where we eat less and exercise without engaging the body's natural defenses for preserving body weight, is possible.

    One thing is clear.  It is a lot less work to stay healthy than it is to shed pounds after you are already obese.  What needs to change, they contend, is doing nothing. 

    "What we are really talking about is changing the message from 'Eat Less, Move More" to 'Move More, Eat Smarter'," says James O. Hill, Ph.D., executive director of the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center and professor of pediatrics and medicine.

    They say even a change in intake of 100 calories a day would prevent 90 percent of adult weight gain. That's basically an egg.  Or an apple. Unfortunately it is also 2 tablespoons of mayonnaise, a light beer or 1⁄3 cup of guacamole. It probably isn't an extra egg making people fat.

    But increasing activity is important.  Otherwise your body has to continually adjust, the yo-yo of weight loss and gain, by biologically matching energy intake to low levels of energy expenditure. They also debunk the media-fueled notion that the "American diet" or even kookier concepts like High-Fructose Corn Syrup, are behind the spike in obesity.  Using 1971 to 2000 numbers, they calculated that modern lifestyles, which require much less physical activity, could have meant a 30 to 80 fold increase in weight gain during that period if not for the body's physiological ability to achieve an energy balance.

    Mitigation and rationing won't work, just like crash dieting does not work.  Crash dieting leads to a physical starvation response and banning good food leads to a cultural one. Everyone knows that, except the social authoritarians who have declared a War On Choice.

    Citation: James O. Hill, PhD; Holly R. Wyatt, MD, John C. Peters, PhD, 'Energy Balance and Obesity', Circulation, 2012;126:126-132 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.087213

    NOTES:

    (1) And aren't we supposed to hate skinny people, because they foist off a negative body image on the rest of us?  A sociologist will have to figure that one out, I am baffled that the fattest nation on the planet insists we focus too much on being thin.

    (2) When I was a kid, food stamps were a safety net. The government was not throwing parties to convince people to sign up.

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    This country isn't seriously about trying to get such health concerns under control.  It would be ridiculously simple to achieve, if anyone were actually interested in doing such a thing.  Instead, they insist on using "punishment" methods to try to coerce behaviors.  What a bunch of nitwits.
    FYI:
    America is not the fattest nation on the planet. This is a common misbelief, in my experience held by people who never bothered fact checking (a bit odd in a science blog I must say).

    America ranks 6th for male obesity and 12th for female obesity according to the WHO. But I am sure you got the rest of the facts right. right?

    Hank
    How is it wrong? OECD in 2012 says America is tops in obesity. America was also tops in 2005.  Maybe you should either rely less on memory or list a data source.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    In truth, when i read this reply, I lol'ed.

    How is it wrong? Let's take this apart piece by piece.

    Hank says: How is it wrong? OECD in 2012 says America is tops in obesity.

    I say: The OECD DO NOT say that America is the fattest in the world. They don't even say (in the link you posted) that they are the fattest in the OECD; because they might not be. Female obesity is higher in Mexico than it is in the US. And even if America was the fattest nation in the OECD - which it may not be - the OECD does not equal the world. There are other nations out there - i know, i've been.

    Hank says: America was also tops in 2005.
    I say: So what, is this 2005? Try 2012 on for size. If I could randomly choose a year from history I am sure I can make all sorts of nations the fattest in the world. And if you follow Hank's link you'll notice that America tops a sample of 30 nations (again, there are more than 30 nations in the world Hank). Great weblink by the way. Your 'Nationmaster.com' certainly beats the WHO in the legitimate authority stakes.

    Hank says: Maybe you should either rely less on memory or list a data source.
    I say: Ummm, I did? I said "according to the WHO". Why not check out http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp It is an official WHO website with BMI levels by nation, including the >=30 BMI which is considered obese.

    So that is how it is wrong. Did I miss anything?

    Gerhard Adam
    So that is how it is wrong. Did I miss anything?
    Yeah, actually you did.
    However, it is important to note that the data presented are not directly comparable since they vary in terms of sampling procedures, age ranges and the year(s) of data collection.
    http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp
    I say: So what, is this 2005? Try 2012 on for size. If I could randomly choose a year from history I am sure I can make all sorts of nations the fattest in the world.

    You should have stayed with 2005, the stats were better.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_33929_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

    There are other nations out there - i know, i've been.
    While that may be true, it is also irrelevant unless you have measured data from those "other nations".  It may serve in the course of being pedantic, but it serves no other purpose.
    Ah, but your reach exceeds your grasp this time Gerhard.

    If the data are not directly comparable, where is the directly compareable dataset on which Hank can base his claim that the US is the fattest nation in the world? How about that source? Either a) cough up the directly comparable source and let us see if the US is truely the worlds most obese nation or b) accept that you just made the fact up on the spot. Absence of evidence for my point does not provide evidence for yours. The US is not fattest 'by default' in the absence of comparable data.

    Oh, and please, please stop citing the OECD data. Is the OECD the world? Does being the fattest in the OECD make you the fattest in the world? Did Hank say 'The US is the fattest nation in the world' or the 'fattest nation on the planet'? The answer to all of these questions is no.

    So let me summarize: Show me the world dataset you based your 'fattest in the world' claim on, or admit that you just came up with it on the spot.

    Gerhard Adam
    I don't need to do anything of the sort.  Of the available data, there is nothing wrong in the claim being made.  However, you wish to be pedantic about it, by insisting that unless everyone on the planet has been measured then there must be some doubt to the claim.

    Do as you like.  If it makes you feel better, or you think that somehow your abuse of data is somehow more justifiable than what you claim is "abuse" simply because it is incomplete, then so be it.  I really don't have time to waste on people that want to engage in such irrelevancies.

    There is no great scientific principle involved here that we need to have such data accuracy other than your imaginary sense that somehow it makes a difference whether or not the U.S. is fattest.

    "Of the available data, there is nothing wrong in the claim being made."
    Yes, there is. The absence of data that America is NOT the fattest nation in the world does not MAKE America the fattest nation in the world. I have no evidence that there is not a colony of unicorns living on the backside of Pluto, but that does not provide evidence that they are there.
    I said, the available data shows that America is not the fattest in the world. You said, you can't tell that from the data you have. But no-one has yet to provide ANY evidence to support the claim that America is the fattest in the world. Hank Campbell, the guy who made the claim, is mysteriously silent on the topic and none of your sources provide evidence that America is the fattest in the world. Based on the most representative sampling of nations - which I presented - it seems unlikely that this is the case, especially for women.

    As for the 'abuse of data' claim, I never accused you of abusing data - merely citing irrelevant data. The OECD rankings are irrelevant when the claim is about world rankings, because the OECD is not the world. My data was incomplete, yours was irrelevant. If the WHO data was directly comparable it would *actually* answer the question. If your OECD data was perfectly accurate, it would *still not* answer the question.

    "your imaginary sense that somehow it makes a difference whether or not the U.S. is fattest."
    It makes a difference because you should not go around saying 'America is the fattest nation in the world' if it is not actually true. Call me a pedant, but I have this thing about people making factual statements and then providing no evidence for them. Is it unfair of me to ask where a statement of fact comes from? How would science look if people could just state things as fact and then never provide any support for them? A lot like science “journalism” apparently.

    Gerhard Adam
    How would science look if people could just state things as fact and then never provide any support for them? A lot like science “journalism” apparently.
    Actually that's the point, isn't it.  This is merely a distraction, since whether America is or is not the fattest nation in the world, is of no scientific relevance.  It makes no difference to the science, nor to the assertions regarding how obesity should be addressed/controlled.  That's what makes the point pedantic, because it focuses on something that has no material affect on the outcome.

    This also presents a secondary problem, because you then attempt to make the point relevant by claiming that it somehow makes the original article "unscientific".  It does nothing of the sort.
    I have no evidence that there is not a colony of unicorns living on the backside of Pluto, but that does not provide evidence that they are there.
    Again, the claim itself is irrelevant unless your point specifically hinged on proof of their existence.  If you wanted to make this assertion and argue that people gain weight because of excess calories, it would be a waste of time to engage in refuting your unicorn argument since it isn't germane to the point being made.

    So, at it's very best, your point might be a minor correction to a casual comment that has no bearing nor relevance to the greater argument under discussion.  Does the argument change if another nation is the fattest?  Is there a different scientific outcome?  Other than pedantry, what is the point?
    Is it unfair of me to ask where a statement of fact comes from?
    Yes, actually it is.  Unless you can demonstrate that a "statement of fact" is relevant to the argument, then it is merely an attempt to undercut a legitimate argument by focusing on irrelevancies.  As I indicated earlier, your assertion of unicorns does not negate the accuracy of a statement regarding caloric consumption.  To link the two would be inappropriate, and even dishonest. 

    Without specifically aiming this at you, this has become popular in today's discussions where an individual may be caught in a lie, and suddenly we're supposed to assume that he's a habitual liar that has been doing this since he could first begin to talk.  We need to stop being so immature, and recognize that the world doesn't hinge on such singular events as being all-defining.
    Thank you for triggering a sudden recognition on my behalf: Being a science blogger means never having to say "sorry, i was wrong".

    I can see my mistake so clearly now. See, I guess i read a lot of actual science (you know, science written by scientists). And when I read those articles, I expect (I would even say demand) that all statements of fact are true. Further, that if asked, the scientist could provide a source for their factual statement. Come to think of it, I have the same expectation of journalists; that they tell me the truth and get the facts right.

    Apparently, the rules change somewhere between science and journalism on one hand, and science journalism on the other (maybe two positives making a negative?). Clearly when you write ABOUT science you only have to get the core argument right; when you write actual science you have to get everything right. I did not appreciate that I had to hold Hank Campbell to a *lower* standard than a scientist or journalist. I naively assumed that when he stated something as a fact, it was, in fact, a fact and not, say, an opinion, stereotype, hunch, or piece of lay wisdom.

    Of course his argument does not hinge off whether or not America is the fattest nation in the world any more than it hinges off unicorns on Pluto. And of course being caught lying about this does not make him a habitual liar (but see also his unjustified, unsupported claims about the world oldest Christian cross, http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/bones_john_baptist_found-91138). But it hardly fills the article with a sense of veracity when the piece contains 'facts' that cannot be justified or supported.

    But, like I said, now I see that I was being a pedant. I will keep my requirement of truth to science and journalism, and suspend them when reading science journalism.

    Gerhard Adam
    I naively assumed that when he stated something as a fact, it was, in fact, a fact and not, say, an opinion, stereotype, hunch, or piece of lay wisdom.
    Do you choose to intentionally misunderstand?  When was the assertion made as a matter of "fact"?  It was a casual mention in a footnote.  It was not used to bolster an argument.  It was not used in any capacity in which it could be construed as a "fact".  It wasn't a part of anything.  It was a casual comment about individual's attitudes.  So, where do you get the notion that this has anything to do with a scientific argument or presentation?
    Ah right, so when someone says "I am baffled that the fattest nation on the planet insists we focus too much on being thin" none of that is meant to be taken as a factual statement. Am I right in also doubting that Hank is baffled? That American does not insist that people focus? Or only that they do not insist that they focus on thinness?

    I must say, it is terribly confusing when what is factual, implied, and tangential is established after the fact. Would that we all had the luxury of deciding our facts post-hoc.

    Gerhard Adam
    You obviously have problems in basic understanding.  First you're complaining that we're not the fattest nation, and that somehow this represents some fundamental factual flaw in science, but of course if that were rectified, you'd shift to how one can know that "it insists" on anything.  From there you can easily move over to the "focus too much on being thin". 

    In general, your whole point is that you tend to focus on irrelevancies and claim that somehow there's a factual linkage here that is germane to the essence of the article.

    I agree that's something is terribly confusing, but it seems to originate and terminate with you.
    Hahahaha 'First you're complaining that we're not the fattest nation, and that somehow this represents some fundamental factual flaw in science' --> I never for a moment thought that anything Hank Campbell writes reflects at all on science. Or if it does, it's the sort of reflection given by a funhouse mirror :D

    "claim that somehow there's a factual linkage here that is germane to the essence of the article" --> Where did i do that? In fact I do the EXACT opposite: i stated that Hank's argument no more hinges of the 'fattest in the world' claim than it does the presence of unicorns on Pluto. Having said that, it does not inspire confidence in the article or author when basic facts (like which nation is fattest in the world, which try as you might you must concede is actually a matter of fact: there MUST be a fattest nation in the world) are gotten wrong or simply not justified.

    The confusion here come entirely from an author inventing a fact, and his friend being too stubborn to accept that he did.

    OK, there are alot of alternative agendas out there. MANY seem disposed to an agenda that presents a purpose for governemt interest in our prevously privot lives. But, if the government has an interst in our health, it has an interst in the details of our privat lives. Do Your Want That? It may not matter, it is here with Justice Robert's decision.