"Must be them damn pesticides."
Edit: I'm more interested in all the other ways jacking up your gut microbiome can negatively affect you, especially the potential links they're starting to find with autism.
It is and it isn't. It's how many calories your body is able to metabolize. Usually those two numbers are similar, but the only way you're going to not get fat from putting 5000 kcal a day into your pie hole is if you have significant medical issues with your digestive system.
Also, it's odd that you'd say "it's not about calories" and link to an publication that literally has "in chronic over nutrition" in it's title.
As someone who, down a few hours of dance practice a day from my peak activity level, is running about 4,300kcal/day burn rate, I can imagine other ways to not gain weight on a 5,000kcal/day diet than “significant medical issues with your digestive system”.
Or have significantly higher lean body mass than a Tour de France rider, since lean body mass is pretty much a multiplicative factor in energy consumption.
> Tangentially, there are oodles of Youtube videos about the diets of professional dancers... who practice 6+ hours a day... and none of them are even breaking 3k calories.
The thing about being a serious amateur dancer is you can be much bigger (both height and frame) than you could be and ever hope to go anywhere professionally in most styles of dance, which professionally tend to very rigorously filter for a very narrow range of body types (even, e.g., in ballroom, though classical ballet is the most notorious and perhaps the most extreme for this.)
FFMI has nothing to do with having low body fat. It's literally the exclusion of fat from the index. You can have a high FFMI and a high BF%. A few years ago I had a DEXA scan done to assess my starting condition prior to starting an exercise regime. That scan showed me as having 30% body fat at a body weight of 260 lbs. Being 6'2" I had an FFMI of 23.4 and an AFFMI of 22.9. My calculated BMR at the time was in the 2200 kcal/day area. (Might be misremembering the BMR, but it definitely wasn't in the high 2000s.)
Edit: we're not talking about people actually eating 5,000 calories per day. 5trokerac3 made that up in order to blame fat people for being fat.
And that's my main complaint with transgenics, which perhaps we should use that word instead of GMO. We are not exhibiting an 'abundance of caution' in this work.
We have major illnesses crossing over from birds and pigs all through our history. Some pretty bad ones in recent times. Moving genes between these species (which we are doing, to try to make more pig organs biocompatible with humans) could be very, very bad. Do we have a good model for what gene groups can increase the likelihood of viruses crossing between species? If this information exists they should be shouting it from the rooftops. But they aren't, which suggests that no such practices are being observed.
If the next H1N1 turns into the Spanish Flu, 'I told you so' just isn't going to cover it.
If someone wants to take a juicier tomato and a tomato with more flavor and combine them to make a hybrid tomato, I don't so much care about a genetically modified tomato that could have eventually been hybridized in the greenhouse. As things get further from that, I have more reservations and I think we should look a little closer. Across species is a little more concerning. Across families moreso still, and so on as we talk about bigger and bigger jumps.
You make a good case about our own genetics specifically, too. Things that alter our DNA or the DNA of things we already share diseases with (other primates, horses, hogs, for example) should probably get more attention to possible risks and side effects.
But I do recall there was one type of genetically modified corn that was made to produce a specific chemical that caused insects' stomachs to explode. Supposedly it was there to reduce the need for pesticides. I recall thinking to myself, If it does that to insect stomachs, what would it do it animals' stomachs?
The other issue that we haven't fully gotten figured out is cross pollination concerns. Aside from the problem of Monsanto's suicide seeds that grow only once and can't be harvested again accidentally cross pollinating with regular seeds from nearby fields, there is another problem with people becoming legally liable for the actions of bees, butterflies and other pollinators. Some GMO's have unreasonably restrictive licensing. This has resulted in a person's field getting pollinated with by bees who were pollinating GMO plants from a neighboring field now getting sued for having plants they haven't licensed even though did not originally plant that particular variety.
Seems like that should be the main concern and thing to highlight in the title of the article. I am less worried about be slightly overweight then fatty liver disease.
All of these ailments are typically comorbid with obesity, so saying "fat" is a shorthand way of getting at these things in a limited-space headline.
(There are ways to do it, but it's extremely hard and finicky math.)
That scenario totally perplexed doctors. As I lost weight, my heart rate increased and BP went up. I had been using mastic gum to repair aspirin damage to my gut, but that was killing off good bacteria. I also worked a lot with round-up when I was a teen.
Nobody ever gained weight from not eating.
/Has lost 130 pounds in the last year by simply not eating when I wasn't hungry, instead of eating when I'm bored or sad.
Supposedly "obese" is about 30% overweight. A lot of people are more than half of the way there. And it's probably due to the same factors that could get them to official obesity. Which often does _not_ include eating when bored. The biggest one may be directly related to aging.
> It’s banned in several countries around the world, it’s a probable carcinogen, and it can cause severe kidney and liver damage, as well as birth defects, brain abnormalities, and mental illnesses.
This is terribly skewed, unscientific writing. Next time consult someone who knows about the science behind glyphosate before writing about it.
(This essentially says that existing studies ruling this out are flawed)
Birth Defects, brain abnormalities/illnesses
Your article on carcinogenic - However, given the heterogeneity between the studies included, the numerical risk estimates should be interpreted with caution.
Your article on liver disease - you left out the title "in patients with fatty liver disease"
Kidney disease - association, not causation
Birth defects - from the conclusions "In this paper, we propose that glyphosate's chelation of Mn..may explain the recent increase in incidence of multiple neurological diseases and other pathologies."
Hardly definitive conclusions.
2. The article does in no way say that pesticides "might make you fat" - that is also pure non-sense, read (1) again if you didn't get the point. The article mentions it increases risk factors for obesity. (risk factors for obesity could be thought to be increased hunger).
3. This isn't entirely new knowledge. The gut microbiome has been in the spotlight for a while now. I first heard of this 3 or 4 years ago
Contributes would've been a better word.
This might be true in thermodynamic sense but it is a useless and trite statement.
It's like saying "people are in debt because they borrowed money" - true, but banal and trivial, and pretending it's the whole story and saying nothing of medical debt, student loans or living from paycheck to paycheck and payday loans dayloans is only good for feeling better than someone, most likely while pretending that all people in debt are stupid because they buy too many cars and TVs or whatever.
The whole area (both nutrition and debt/poverty) is very complex, especially when looking at whole society. Thinking in simple caricatures, and dismissing people as stupid is helping nobody.
I'm not trying to troll or anything, but just let us not contribute to any more ignorance on nutrition.
There are significant factors which affect both how many calories your body will take in, as well as how many it burns out, even if two people have identical activity levels. So while that "calories in vs calories out" statement is true, it's also trite. Faster metabolisms or better metabolic efficiency can lead to lower weight gain than another person might experience for a given level of activity.
It is useful advice on an individual scale - you yourself cannot directly affect your metabolism or your gut biome at the present time so the only thing you can really affect is exercise and caloric intake. It is not predictive between persons in the sense that two people on identical diets and exercise regimes will experience identical amounts of weight change.
Fecal transplants are an interesting wildcard - the idea is to kill off your own gut microbiome as much as possible and then replace it with someone else's. In some case studies, this has had significant efficacy in weight loss. My understanding is these fauna have significant effects in "pre-processing" this food as well as consuming some of the energy for themselves, so yes, microbiome can directly affect weight gain/loss.
It may be, but your argument doesn't support that.
> it is not a direct cause of the buildup of fat.
Indirect causes are still causes, and often the more important causes in terms of practical decision making.
“My stabbing him didn't kill him, his brain tissue being oxygen deprived killed him” may often be true if you limit concern to the most immediate direct cause, but we tend to look beyond that in assigning responsibility for good reason.
So, why do you consume so much? Who calls for more and more calories? Why do you get hungry all the time? Why do you not get the needed nutrients from the food you eat? What destroyed the function of your digestive system? Why is your microbiome so different from a healthy person?