Good morning,
Below is the 'double post' my counterpart referenced in yesterday's blubbering post. The 'doubling' he was talking about is in concept only - 'my favorite analogy of 2017' was already covered last Tuesday.
However, surely we all can agree that doubling topics is, if anything, TOA's specialty?
Oh well.
Good luck, reader.
Signed,
The Business Bro
*********
In The Case Against Sugar, Gary Taubes makes an analogy to describe why the 'calories in, calories out' model of weight change makes no sense to him. He compares it to an explanation for a room becoming full: saying people gain weight by eating more calories than they expend is like saying a room is becoming crowded because more people are entering than leaving. Although it explains what is happening, it fails to account for why it is happening.
The question of why is a critical one in most cases. In the case of metabolism, the key question is not how many more calories are entering than exiting - the question is why some calories are being stored as fat instead of being burnt up as energy. Why are some overweight people lethargic? Shouldn't the stored calories in the fat cells ramp up the energy level until they are all burnt up? The status quo represented by 'calories in, calories out' fails to explain why in any sense of the word.
Unfortunately, the explanation is also logically irrefutable. The 'calories in, calories out' model makes it easy to dismiss the overweight or obese as simply having Eaten Too Much or Exercised Too Little. It fools the public into thinking the science is irrefutable and shifts the burden of responsibility for weight control to people struggling with their weight. In many cases, these people are driving themselves to exhaustion in simply doing their best every day to feed themselves healthy food in a controlled way - that they do this while also dealing with all the stigma and pressure coming from the generally ignorant society around them is remarkable.
There are probably many similar arguments in other fields that await a clear thinker to recognize the tautology of an accepted explanation. This thinker will stop one day and ask - wait, this is only describing what, not explaining why. And off we'll go on a journey towards the next great human breakthrough...
Each person willing to step up and call it like it is represents an opportunity for others to question assumptions, apply the newest research techniques, and eventually move our quality of life forward by another step. In the context of nutrition, my money is on someone who upends the 'calories in, calories out' model entirely - perhaps by proving that weight gain is more like an allergic reaction to certain types of food than it is like a room overbooked with guests becoming increasingly more congested.
