Alex Leaf @Alexleaf

@Alexleaf explains why he can't understand the "supplements are a scam" belief, and the marketing trick that lets brands make big claims without ever disclosing the actual dose. Hosted by @theNOBSdentist, @CalvinandNOBS, and @TJ_Bongiorno. Brought to you by: NOBS: nobsroutines.com The Outgoing Co.: theoutgoing.co Full episode here or YouTube: DTHshow

@Alexleaf ran a systematic review on keto and athletic performance. What he found once researchers actually tested elite athletes wasn't what keto's biggest defenders expected. Hosted by @theNOBSdentist, @CalvinandNOBS, and @TJ_Bongiorno. Brought to you by: NOBS: nobsroutines.com The Outgoing Co.: theoutgoing.co Full episode here or YouTube: DTHshow

I've explained in detail why the analogy doesn't work, and replying with "the two are simply analogous" is not a rebutall of that. You are just reasserting your original position without actually engaging with my refutation. To your second part, traveling 10 miles out and back is 20 miles traveled total. That isn't opposition. If instead you mean that traveling 10 miles east and then 10 miles west results in zero net displacement, then that is exactly the same as energy balance. Position = stored body energy Miles = units of energy Direction of travel = direction of energy flow Miles east = energy entering the body Miles west = energy leaving the body Net displacement = change in stored body energy If you travel 10 miles east then west, you end up where you started. If you consume 2000 kcal and expend 2000 kcal, your stored energy is unchanged. But if you travel 15 miles east then 10 miles west, you are now 5 miles east of where you started. If you consume more than you expend, you have now stored more energy than when you started. This is a correct analogy, and it's obviously not a post-hoc accounting because manipulating the flow of energy is the proximal cause of changing stored energy, just as manipulating distance traveled in certain directions is the proximal cause for determining where you end up.

Obesity is driven by a number of interacting factors that all converge to affect its proximal cause: chronic energy surplus. Beliefs, priorities, and preferences are the biggest factors. Most people simply have no desire to be healthy or to put in the effort required to be healthy in the modern environment. And appreciating this truth and the agency that people possess is not mutually exclusive with everything else that follows. Hyperpalatable food supply is next, defined by food options rich in combinations of added sugars, refined grains, added fats, salt, and flavorings. None of these things is obesogenic on its own. Inactivity comes third. People don't want to be active, and the modern environment is great at allowing people to live their lives with very little physical activity being needed. Then you have things like genetics, sleep and circadian disruption, chronic stress, medications, socioeconomic factors, alcohol, toxicants, and the microbiome. Key thing is figuring out what the biggest levers are for a particular person. But energy balance remains king, and encouraging personal agency over behavior is essential (e.g., no food will ever compel you to eat it).

@brianatheroux It is surreal. I think that every day I have the pleasure of looking at you.

This is a simple category error that doesn't really engage with what I wrote. It's not accounting simply because the word “balance” appears lol. And your miles analogy is still false because miles are just a measurement of distance. There aren't opposing flows of miles whose difference accumulates as position.

I speculated this is what you were getting at. No, its a false analogy. Miles don't cause travel because miles are merely the measurement of travel. A chronic energy surplus isn't a measurement of obesity, it is a measurement of the difference between energy entering and leaving the system (our body). Energy balance isn't a post-hoc accounting because its manipulation directly affects fat gain / loss, which is why it is the proximal cause of obesity. We can actually predict changes in body weight with great accuracy based on changes in energy balance. A much better analogy would be something like "does a sustained surplus of water entering a bathtub relative to water leaving cause the water level to rise?" The answer is obviously yes. Of course, its an incomplete answer. It doesn't tell us why inflow exceeds outflow. Same distinction with obesity. There are many ultimate causes, but they all affect body weight by converging on energy balance.

@exfatloss No, and I'll let you finish your thoughts before I interject, but please just finish your analogy and state your position in the reply to this. I don't want to play 50 questions.

@_earthling74 Appeal to ignorance.

@exfatloss Pot calling kettle black? Happy to discuss. What is your position, and what do you think mine is that you are critiquing?

@sciencenoteasy @KevinH_PhD I don't find this to be incompatible with what I said. Can you clarify on which part you'd push back on?

@brianatheroux Exactly. They force behavior change without much effort, which is why weight regain happens when the drugs stop... they revert back to their original behaviors. These drugs are just a stop gap.

Part of what makes GLPs so powerful is that they can alter behavior before a person ever reaches conscious contemplation. Many people never meaningfully consider a different way of eating or living because they have never experienced the physiological and psychological conditions that make that alternative feel preferable. GLPs can change the reward landscape first, and cognition often catches up afterward. For some people, cognition never catches up to the behavioral shift, which is why many revert after discontinuation. But that outcome is not inevitable. The period on a GLP can become evidence—>if someone consciously updates the perceived benefits of food, movement, satiety, and their old habits, the new behavior can become genuinely preferable rather than merely pharmacologically easier.

Alex Leaf @Alexleaf

2 days ago

Obesity is driven by a number of interacting factors that all converge to affect its proximal cause: chronic energy surplus. Beliefs, priorities, and preferences are the biggest factors. Most people simply have no desire to be healthy or to put in the effort required to be

5 1 12 2K 2

@ChrisMasterjohn Lmao, no way. Wow.

As someone who is a huge fan of supplements in general, it really irritates me to the core to see companies sell products with complete bullshit claims like this. You cannot tell me with a straight face that 100 mg of your collagen product is equivalent to 10 grams of another.

@reallyoptimized It is interesting for sure, but i don't think I would say that the evidence behind it is becoming stronger. I don't think we yet have any quality research published on it, and I'm hoping that changes.

@Zygomatic03 His entire post is bullshit.

@LindenJohan They will send warning letters first before taking action, and the company will rack up sales until enforcement happens

@pubmedwarrior Right? But they rack up sales until they get shut down.

@stathi_ Id need to look, but from the text you highlighted it doesnt look like they did mutual adjustments for concentration and percentage.

This is actually easily explainable and it isn't the "dunk" or whatever some people think it is. At the most fundamental level, linoleic acid (LA) concentration and percentage are separate biological variables. You can see this with a simple hypothetical: the first person is metabolically healthy while the second person isn't. Healthy person: Total fatty acids = 4 mmol/L LA = 1.2 mmol/L LA = 30% of total Unhealthy person: Total fatty acids = 8 mmol/L LA = 1.6 mmol/L LA = 20% of total The LA concertation increased by 33% in the unhealthy person, but the percentage decreased from 30% to 20%. And this would result in the exact thing you see among these graphs, where higher metabolic risk correlates with both higher LA concentrations and lower LA percentage. This is almost certainly what was happing in the NHANES cohort from this study because total circulating fatty acid concentrations were positively correlated to triglyercides, LDL, cholesterol, insulin, glucose, blood pressure, BMI, and waist circumference. And LA increased as total fatty acids increased, but not nearly as quickly, meaning that percentage of LA fell while concentration of LA increased as someone became more metabolically unhealthy. Basically, LA concentration may simply be inheriting the association between total circulating fatty acids and metabolic dysfunction. Just take a step back here and imagine someone with insulin resistance. These people have a larger circulating pool of fatty acids overall, including LA. So of course LA concentration tracks with insulin, just like nearly every other fatty acid. So, if anything, these results aren't evidence that LA concentration is itself harmful.

MEATrition.com 🥩 - Travis Statham M.S. Nutri-Sci @MEATritionCom

7 days ago

HUGE #seedoil News: Science studies typically only use fatty acid percentage of the whole but when actual concentrations are measured, the associations to disease outcomes flip, especially for omega-6 fatty acids found in seed oils! Authors include anti seed oil investigators

13 14 51 18K 47