"Obesogens: a unifying theory for the global rise in obesity"

(Bob M) #1

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-024-01460-3

This is an interesting argument. They have a nice figure showing the two main theories about what causes obesity, the energy balance model (EBM) and the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM):

image

Dare I say that both models make sense to me? For instance, I see the logic in the CIM. But I have the issue that many times for dinner, I will not be hungry at all. I’ll take something small (to be able to eat with the family), then go get more, then go get more… I’ll end up eating a normal meal, when I started out not hungry.

I theorize that there is something “messed up” in my hormones that signal satiety. That’s part of the CBM.

Your thoughts on this study?

(Joey) #2

Interesting material. (I assume you are referring to EBM, not CBM?)

Lacking any science to support my view: I’m more partial to the CIM model, given its simplicity and repeatedly observable results in the real world.

EBM seems to encompass so many confounding factors - metabolic, behavioral, psychological, environmental - that the model would appear to cave in on its own weight. I don’t doubt all the relevant model inputs might be relevant, but given Occam’s razor, it would seem that such a model would be too cumbersome for meaningful application.

Again, lacking science, I always choose personal bias :wink:

image

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #3

This is perfectly normal. We evolved to be able to take on food when it is available, so as to be able to get through the next period of fasting. As long as your mitochondria are healthy and your adipocytes are metabolically active (that is, not inhibited by insulin), your metabolism should be fine.

I find that, since I went carnivore, my weight dropped by 8 lbs./3.6 kg, and remains stable, and my hair and nails are growing at a faster rate than I can remember them ever doing. I hate to admit it, but Ellen G.White was right to recommend an inadequate, poor-quality diet, given that her goal was to sap people’s vitality and undermine their sex drives. The reverse also seems to be true. When I went keto, little things, such as hair and nail growth, accelerated noticeably. Now, on carnivore, I’m back to having to shave every day, my nails grow so fast I can’t keep up with them, and I need a haircut every month, instead of every three months.

#4

I am sure it’s not simple enough to explain with one simple model. There are various reasons for obesity. In my case it was overeating (fat but because of carbs), clearly.

I agree. I saw this from Bob quite a few times and sometimes I wrote I can relate as I am the same. I don’t see why one would need some problem to have this. Some of us clearly need proper sized meals or nothing at all. Small meals make us hungry in most circumstances. It’s even logical to me: I “woke up” my body so it better gets his proper amount of food to calm down again!
Just because many people can get satiated by tiny snacks or even sugary food, I am not a badly working one because I can’t! :wink: Just different. I accept my individual things and try to eat accordingly.

(Bob M) #5

Well, I think parts of the EBM (yes, not CBM - not sure how that happened) are possibly true. The biome does mean – something. I’ve seen amazing things happen to people when they cure their biome, but I’m not sure that the biome controls hunger, which some say it does.

I can see also that something like carnivore can be a benefit, though I haven’t ascertained exactly why it’s a benefit. (And I’ll note that it’s actually quite a detriment to some. I’ve heard some women, in particular, who lost their periods while being carnivore. I don’t know why.)

But from a CIM perspective, keto should be better than carnivore, because I would think your absolute insulin hit would be smaller on keto (vegetables have almost no insulin hit), and you’re likely making those veggies on carnivore up with protein (much higher insulin hit). But that’s a simple reading of things.

If you ever watch any of Gabor Erdosi’s stuff and how he analyzes everything from what happens during digestion, there are so many hormones and other chemicals that are affecting us. The CIM doesn’t address these. The EBM seems to, although not to the extent that Gabor does.

Shinita and I seem to have similar issues, at least when it comes to eating while not being hungry or snacking (bad for me). But I often wonder if the reason some people go low carb/keto and get to the weight they were as teens, but others, like me, don’t, is because something is broken in me (or Shinita) that’s not broken in them? I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s hormones that occur when I eat, that’s what’s broken. I could be wrong, and I don’t know how to fix that. (I’ve never tried carnivore to see if that would.)

(KM) #6

image
image.jpg1062×562 99.4 KB

If I understand, what this final slide is indicating is that environmental factors (including in utero) cause inappropriate hormonal signaling, which causes inappropriate food consumption, leading to disrupted microbiome, altered metabolic rate and additional inappropriate brain signals, which leads to further overeating / eating the wrong foods, which leads to obesity. It certainly is an inclusive model!

My “problem” with is is simply that we can’t go back and change our generational, in-utero or historical exposure to anything … if this model is to be believed, there’s not a whole lot we can do other than avoid additional environmental obesogens and try to manually adjust our food intake rather than relying on the signals we perceive in our brains. (Hopefully this intentional dietary manipulation leads to some healing which improves the signals and allows us to eat both more intuitively and more healthfully.) Well and good, but leaves a whole lot of interpretation about what that manipulation should be.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #7

Mike Eades has a slide comparing the two models, and they are almost identical, except for where they place the emphasis. For example, the carbohydrate-insulin model blames the hormonal effects on eating the wrong foods, whereas the energy-balance model blames eating on the hormones. My experience with eating puts me squarely in the former camp, not the latter.

Personally, I tend to see “obesogens” as a fancy way of saying, “It’s not the sugar that’s bad for us, it’s arterycloggingsaturatedfat that kills.” Obviously, the Sugar Research Foundation’s money was well-spent, since that view has taken over the mainstream of nutritional thought. (Encouraged by Coca-Cola and Unilever, no doubt.)

(Geoffrey) #8

Spot on Paul.

(KM) #9

One of the study’s authors is Robert Lustig, known much more for his anti sugar stance than any problem he might have with fats.

“…and the obesogens model (OBS), which proposes that environmental chemicals interfere with hormonal signaling leading to adiposity”.

" Obesogens can be natural (e.g., metals, viruses), anthropogenic prescription drugs, environmental (insecticides, plastics, household chemicals, particulate matter), or food components (fructose, trans -fats, preservatives, emulsifiers) [18, 86]. Obesogens include solvents (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)); pesticides (e.g., dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), chlorpyrifos, diazinon, permethrin, neonicotinoids); non-stick coatings (e.g., per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS)); clothing and furniture protectants (e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs)); food preservatives/additives/emulsifiers (e.g., parabens, monosodium glutamate, carboxymethylcellulose, 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole (3-BHA)); personal care products (e.g., phthalates, parabens); plastics (e.g., phthalates, bisphenols); resins and can linings (e.g., bisphenols); and air pollutants (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fine particulate matter (PM2.5)) [87]. Some pharmaceutical drugs [88, 89] and early-life antibiotics can also be obesogens. Exposures can occur via air, water, food, skin contact or dust inhalation [90, 91]."

I see no mention of arterycloggingsaturatedfat, unless “obesogen” is a dog whistle.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #10

I should have read the article! Looking at the list, the one thing all those items have in common is that they are mitochondrial toxins.

Animal fats are definitely not mitochondrial toxins! :bacon::bacon:

(KM) #11

I’ve been reading The Longevity Paradox, by Steven Gundry. Hugely frustrating because he has some great stuff about mitochondria and gut bacteria and the impact they play in our lives - perhaps much more than our own human genes. Then he goes off and basically gets on a vegan bandwagon with almost no scientifically explained bridge. Aaargh. :rage:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #12

The human propensity for that kind of double-think is amazing.

I’ve read papers where the data demonstrated better weight-loss and better metabolic markers for a low-carb high-fat diet, and yet they still managed to conclude that a high-carb, low-fat diet was better.

David Diamond came across a paper on side effects of statins, where the authors explicitly stated that arterial calcification is bad and must be treated with a statin, but that if the statin increases the calcification, that’s a good thing.

(icky) #13

Why you may be eating and drinking more microplastics than you thought

I guess these are “obesogens” too

(Edith) #14

When you eat even a tiny bit of food, your body secretes a small amount of insulin to stop the fat burning process and to prepare the body for more food to come. That is how/why appetizers are supposed to work to increase appetite.

#15

Appetizers make little sense to me as I work differently… If I am ready to eat, give me proper food already :smiley: Except when I get very hungry with negative appetite but I can’t eat solids then (broth is a great appetizer there but other liquids and creamy, soft items with calories helps).
And apparently the amounts are individual. If my SO eats a tiny food, he gets hungry and need a big meal. If I eat a tiny food, nothing happens. If I eat a little (but more than tiny) food, I get hungry and need a decent sized meal, most probably.
Appetite has little impact on my food intake except if it’s very low or very high. But hunger is something I always had a hard time to ignore (not like I wanted but sometimes it’s not convenient to run to eat immediately as it appears).

(Edith) #16

I think this depends on what that “tiny food” is. If it it something very fatty that does not elicit an insulin response, it will not create hunger. If it DOES cause an insulin response, then it will make you hungry.

#17

That too but I talk about the purely individual factor.
It doesn’t matter what and how much the tiny food is (pure fat never happens so that doesn’t count), my SO will get very hungry, immediately. I don’t. A tiny bit of sugar doesn’t ever make me hungry. But a whole (normal sized) apple? Oh my, that is very serious and I better have 100-150g fat and protein at hand or else I will suffer. (The actual numbers depend on the time of the day and some other factors but I need a decent amount.)

Pure fat is special (fat fast was the only case where I could got satiated with low calorie and super low protein) but if I eat a little fatty meat, more than a bite but still little, I typically get quite hungry very soon and it’s very very urgent, I MUST eat if possible. In that situation I gobble up high-carb food if that is the only option, anything but FOOD. Well, almost. Some items are still out as they would just make me hungrier. Or I know they are horrid. Or I don’t like them. As time passes, I retain more and more conscious brain power when very hungry as far as I can tell… But I can’t stand strong hunger any more.