Economic impact laid bare by findings has implications for UK where about two-thirds of people are overweight or obese

Archived version: https://archive.ph/H65uz

  • nakedunclothedhuman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Obesity can be a risk factor for certain individuals but more research has been pointing towards family history, genetic, and even environmental effects to explain more of the variance for health outcomes over obesity as a standalone variable. It can definitely makes things more complicated but isn’t the single point of health as we’ve made it out to be.

    As for the CI/CO, that has also been disproven quite some time ago and continues to perpetuate because it is a simple way to try and understand weight. Here’s another short (non-scientific) article to dive into that: https://immattersacp.org/archives/2021/06/understand-obesity-before-treating-it.htm#:~:text=Treating%2520obesity%2520isn’t,be%2520OK%252C”%2520she%2520said. In short, individuals vary in how their bodies store and utilize calories and calories themselves vary depending on the source. Some bodies do fall under the fairly simple ci/co addage but the majority do not and continuing to understand it from that lens maintains weight stigma, which we also see as a major contributer to negative health outcomes in individuals living in larger bodies.

    While I agree that mental health is a primary issue (it is literally my field of study, practice, and research), I also like to try and share some of the more recent findings and understanding in our field, especially as we continue to learn and correct old findings. I apologize that you’re getting so many long messages but I just find it important to try and speak out where I can, especially after working with and treating folks with eating disorders.

    • LwL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Am I misunderstanding something or is that article saying “it’s not CI/CO, it’s actually CI/CO”? The incorrect assumption people make is that somehow the only change to energy intake and expenditure is food and exercise (which we have known for very long to not be the case and it’s insane to me that people believe that), not that the law of conservation of energy somehow doesn’t apply. If you expend more energy than you take in, you will lose weight. But measuring either of these things properly is close to impossible and certainly not as simple as “put your height and weight and what you eat and how much you exercise into a calculator”.

      • nakedunclothedhuman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No, that’s the correct interpretation, essentially we’ve simplified the “formula” to be easily digested (ci/co) and people have a tendency to understand it as an easy cut calories or expend more. But as you’ve noted, it’s extremely complex and doesn’t take into account individual needs or variability which makes the generalized health advice of “just lose weight/diet/exercise” pretty unhelpful. Especially as we have no true recommended options that contribute to weight loss with long term maintenance.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      How has cico been disproven? The mental health component is the real issue. As in, for very legitimate reasons, humans can’t maintain the diet, due to failing to maintain discipline. Disproving cico would mean humans create perpetual energy.

      If you lock someone in a room and give them only water, they will lose weight. (Set aside vitamins)

      Then try a single spoonful of rice a day. Still lose weight.

      Continue to increase food, you’ll find eventually they maintain a consistent weight.

      Continue to increase food and eventually they will gain weight, as they will be consuming more calories than they burn.

      • nakedunclothedhuman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ci/co as a thermodynamic rule hasn’t been disproven but it works in a vaccum with no other factors considered. Humans are complex and vary in their biological processes that change how calories are utilized, processed, stored, etc. Two people can be put on the exact same diet and exercise plan and have completely different outcomes, that’s where the simplified idea of ci/co has been “disproven” as far as it is commonly understood.

        As far as the mental health piece, it is one part of the puzzle but its not necessarily the main component, and also cannot be simplifed to maintaining discipline. Basically, all I’m trying to say is people are complex and just saying an individual needs more discipline or needs to lose weight really reduces the nuances between the relationship of weight and overall health.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Discipline is mental health. Mental health is the real issue.

          Edit discipline is not the only relevant mental health topic here, just replying to that in particular.