There is nothing at all inexplicable about that. Access to very palatable and not-very-satiating (cal for cal) food will change behaviours over time, these behaviours are also inherited in familial environments, and compound since once someone is obese, it becomes increasingly hard to get not-obese. With micro-cultural behaviour change which favours obesity, we're also seeing actual cultural changes toward acceptance and promotion of obesity-promoting behaviours, excessive eating among family and friends, increasingly sedentary lifestyles (lord knows the last two years will have accelerated that), forgetting how to cook, or deciding to not bother cooking the sorts of foods which are satiating and lower cal.
It's pretty disheartening, yeah. Putting aside the lying for a moment, I'm also pretty deeply concerned at the damage SMTM could do to public health, if funding and attention allowed them to reach a wider audience. From https://slimemoldtimemold.com/tag/a-chemical-hunger/
"Our suggestions are very prosaic: Be nice to yourself. Eat mostly what you want. Trust your instincts.
Diet and exercise won’t cure obesity, but this is actually good news for diet and exercise. You don’t need to put the dream of losing weight on their shoulders, and you can focus on their actual benefits instead. You should focus on your diet — not to get thin, but to make sure that you have enough energy to do everything you want to do in life. This means eating enough and making sure you get what you need. You should exercise — not to slim down, but to gain strength and energy, and you shouldn’t get discouraged when you don’t drop 50 lbs fast."
Obese? Don't worry about it! It's chemical, maybe with an added bit of genetics to explain why you're fat and your friend who drinks the same water isn't. "Don't diet to get thin but to have enough energy" is basically "don't diet to lose weight, in fact, if you feel low-energy, then don't worry about gaining weight". And this is terrible advice to give the obese and morbidly obese. Yes, you shouldn't be terrible to such people, because that is no way to encourage change, and because you should not add to someone's woes. But being fat, even "healthy eating and fat, and walking periodically and fat", is still tied to worse actuarial outcomes, and direct and obvious health consequences. And it's avoidable! I didn't say much about this in my earlier comments, or on my own blog, because it's not relevant so much to the population-level stuff, but it really is entirely possible to lose weight at the individual level. There are studies on this too.
It may be, especially for some people, not-easy. But lots of things that will add years and QALYs are not easy. What I'm quite sure doesn't make it easier is imbibing this talk from SMTM, concluding that nothing can be done, and only wising up 2 or 5 or 10 years down the line, when you're fatter, and afflicted potentially with conditions that ride along with additional weight gain, and decide to try losing weight then.
Like seriously, Eliezer, if you're reading this, I'm happy to walk you through any research on this topic to your hearts content- I won't ask for a "bounty" like Applied Divinity is offering, and I promise to patiently respond in any forum to any question on this, within my power to answer- where it is not I will appeal to others I know who are more knowledgeable. But please do not give money to these people, or encourage others to do the same. This is a time when providing money is at best a waste, and at worst, likely to actually make the world worse in a small but obvious way. At least, if you think I'm full of it, require a little more of them before taking said plunge.
Well, I never called them stupid. In fact, quite the opposite. I promised a series on SMTM on my new blog, but life has got in the way somewhat the last few weeks. I should perhaps get around to that now. Just a few notes on this:
Their interpretation of overfeeding studies is extremely odd. That's an aside, but it's one that I'll make good on in a few days. I've already discussed it at length on the ACX discord server, but not in a format conducive to just reposting here. So, a little note on my distaste for their appeals to "common interpretations", since those literally do not matter- something that is a mystery to Bob on the street and not a mystery to diet scientists, is not a mystery that requires extra research. It requires education and publicity, maybe.
The "linear relationship" is one such appeal- it's not something I think anyone actually believes. Or rather, there is a sensible and a less sensible interpretation. The sensible interpretation is that your metabolism changes as you get fatter, because fat is metabolically active tissue. A person with 300lbs of "extra" fat on them will "be" a metabolism which is burning through more calories daily/weekly regardless. Add 3500 calories onto what they eat weekly for maintenance of that weight and you'd expect about a lb of gain, holding things like activity level equal (and probably for someone very fat you can). But you can't stop at time t1, determine the caloric surplus for such a person would be, say 4500 calories a day for a surplus of 1lb a week, and just run that forever. That's not how any of this works.
Also I know of literally not a soul writing in the literature today (maybe random "diet coaches" at weightwatchers and the like) that thinks weight loss is equally hard for everyone. You have different cultures, access to different foods, tolerance of different foods, different leptin signalling, different hormonal responses, different fat distribution, so on- oh and just differing lifestyle factors between individuals. Much of this explains how some get fat in the first place and how some fail to do so. It also explains how those differences could become more stark in environments where suddenly lots of hyper-palatable and not-very-satiating food becomes the norm.
But anyway, these are just a few notes, and I'll cover more when I write up the post responding there. I'll just add that I think there is clear intent to mislead in various places (to the "why would I call them lying liars and aren't I really missing the point" issue). I refer you to (1) especially here- if you don't think, having read the underlying article, and their commentary, that they are being even remotely misleading, well, that's an interesting data point at least. Because I'm not seeing a retraction or an edit there, which would be reasonable if one thought there was danger of misunderstanding. And it seems to me the reason why is because it's a nice hook- "people ate all the bad food years ago and they don't eat the bad food as much now even, but they're getting fatter", "never mind about the fact that we just swapped what fats we consume and have quadrupled our intake or whatever". Since SMTM's mystery is (among other things) "why are people eating more"
If I thought their only point was "environmental contaminants might be making people hungrier" then, well, I'd still have lots of issues- not least that we already have plenty of research on diets which talk about this very issue. But, y'know, fine. There are plenty of interesting things which do affect hunger-signalling, But the "among other things" troubles me, and the main one- which SMTM very evidently devote quite some time too, is the "ability of the body to just dump fat stores". It's noted in various places, sometimes explicitly, sometimes through the writing equivalent of raised eyebrows and nodding in a certain direction. But it's there. And (1) to reference back, goes precisely to that issue. The claim isn't that people just feel like they must eat more now, it's that they ate "badly" in the past and yet didn't seem to gain weight in spite of it. No mention of calories specifically there, but of course that does come up later with overfeeding studies and this utterly ludicrous "we don't deny that if you eat only 400 calories a day you'll lose weight, and10,000 a day you'll gain weight", as if this is a concession to common sense. They seem to believe, or at least write as if it is the case that, a person at weight [x] today, could eat the same amount as someone 100 years ago, also at weight [x], calorically, and yet gain more weight, for reasons having nothing to do with exercise (obviously not diet since that's the control here). That is where I have serious issues. If you think that is not something in the SMTM canon, then let me know why I'm misreading them, please.
I think I could grant they are actually correct there- it's just not actually in their evidence. Thanks for doing the math though.
I do not merely have "a different interpretation of some studies" to SMTM- or at least, this is not centrally why I make the rather specific accusation I do (which I stand entirely by) (A few points of closer-to-object-level disagreement to follow, concluding with my "real" response here, if you want to skip ahead).
The first of three instances I cite here is closest to the pattern you describe, and even there, I wouldn't suggest they were being purposefully misrepresentational if they had cited and disagreed with the paper in question. What we have instead is a paper clearly stating/providing, in its abstract and conclusion (and quite frankly, there is no other reasonable interpretation of the data they provide- one could dispute the data, but SMTM does not go this route) a causal story for secular weight gain (specifically during childhood), and SMTM using that citation narrowly to, in effect, make the contrary point (that this is a big old mystery, that our forebears ate more "bad" food than we did and mysteriously didn't get fat). It gets worse, mind you, though I was trying to keep my initial comment (relatively) brief- since this is immediately followed up wth "we don’t seem to have any idea what that thing was". I'm of the view that if SMTM had good reason to disagree with this and other papers they cite (to say nothing of the mass which address this question besides, but I'm not merely accusing them of being uninformed, as I said), then they should either explain why in individual cases, or give some reason for a blanket-dismissal of the literature (which they remain happy to cite for their own purposes, mind you, so the reason can't be "utter incompetence of people in the field).
The second point simply leaps from a claim about percentages of intake to a claim about absolute intake with precisely no citation, explanation, or argument, in a way that clearly equivocates (I've had several conversations with people who have, in fact, "fallen for" this). SMTM are not fools, and they're often praised for the quality of their writing, so I struggle to believe this was an innocent mistake. I won't go over point 3, but I'll make a more general point, a little further from the object level here too.
I think what can be an epistemic virtue in discussion can risk becoming a failure mode in action. Extending the sort of charity required to assume SMTM are merely misguided, or that a mere factual disagreement exists among us, despite evidence to the contrary, is a Good Thing, even if not strictly accurate, while we're debating diet models, or considering the effects of lithium on body fat, or whatever else. We want to engage with the strongest possible version of our counterparts position, or at least engage on assumptions of good faith. That's all great, and a positive thing in general about the LW/ACX/Rationalist community. On the other hand, if you're trying to buy a car, or are contemplating a business deal, or (as here) are considering where to give money to charity, between "nets for african children", "AI alignment", " When thinking in the domain of "giving people money", I think one should be more, not less, than averagely sensitive to the possibility that you are being deliberately misled. If someone shows all the signs that they are:
(1) omitting important information; "This car lacks brakes!" "Well, I would have told you but the email just didn't have room for that information"
(2) interpreting data differently to how the modal reasonable person would without any explanation (and without providing the data upfront); [no patients in the hospital and only admin staff on payroll] "The hospital is operating at peak efficiency and achieving its strategic goals!"
(3) Equivocating or jumping from one claim to a different one without good reason; I honestly can't think of a better example than the Hadza case for SMTM so I won't try, and will just invite people to look at that again
then you should, in fact, model them as liars, and don't give them your money. I think this is a reasonable heuristic, at least, but one is free to do whatever of course. I'd just put around a credence of 0.0000001 in you getting any sort of return on this investment. You might ask why one should not say "This person is radically wrong in this case, don't give them money to study this" instead of accusing them of deliberate misrepresentation. Well, understanding when someone is lying is helpful to modelling future action. I think we would all mostly agree that it would be deeply unwise to "invest" in Bernie Madoff, or someone else who made their money convincing people to invest on the promise of good returns a la pyramid schemes. At least, the burden should be on them to demonstrate, with quite a high bar, that this time they are being entirely on the level with you.
Well, this has inspired me to finally make an account for LessWrong commenting!
As someone very familiar with the "science on obesity", I do not find SMTM remotely persuasive. https://basedprof.substack.com/p/smtm-mysteries canvasses the reasons why in detail, for those who are going to look at the link in the above article and be inclined to trust it. SMTM repeatedly misrepresent not just scientific consensus, but also literally the articles which they cite. There are multiple examples of it in the "Mysteries" post, but this isn't even the worst offender.
If you do not believe that EA should be in the business of giving money to proven liars, shown to be rather specifically lying about the thesis which they would be given money to study, you should not give a cent to them, and you should point out that others should (not) do the same.
For those who don't want to read my (admittedly ranty) post about them (the reasons for said rantiness are, well, the consistent lying), here are three such lies/misrepresentations (two from the above, another from the second post in the series). As an aside, I'm not merely asserting that they are often wrong (though that would also, by extension, and in addition, be true).
(1) "their [our grandparents/great grandparents and older] diets were worse, not better. They ate more bread and almost four times more butter than we do today. They also consumed more cream, milk, and lard." - and the linked article once more: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/91/5/1530S/4597478
I suppose this is not "strictly" a lie in the same way that "When did you stop beating your wife?" is not strictly an unreasonable question to ask. But it's deeply misleading, and SMTM must know it is misleading if they actually read the article they use as evidence. That very article cites a massive increase in consumption of other fats, and carbohydrates- so even if our ancestors ate more butter and bread, they were still consuming far fewer calories. This, in fact, is what the article concludes: "The increase in childhood obesity mainly reflects increased energy intake".
(2) "A Tanzanian hunter-gatherer society called the Hadza get about 15 percent of their calories from honey. Combined with all the sugar they get from eating fruit, they end up eating about the same amount of sugar as Americans do. Despite this, the Hadza do not exhibit obesity."
They provide literally no evidence for the proposition that the Hadza eat as much sugar as Americans do, their citations certainly do not demonstrate this. And as I cite in my response ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503 :
“Western diets are certainly more sugar-rich and energy-dense than more “traditional” diets and wild foods [4], [8], [9], many hunter-gatherers seasonally consume a large portion of their daily calories as honey” which, ok sure, “a lot of daily calories as honey”, but look at the “western diets are more sugar rich and energy dense” bit.
They move from a claim about percentage of energy intake for individuals to an entirely unwarranted claim about overall energy intake between two different cultures. This section is actually way worse, but feel free to read my post for more.
(3) "“This model seems to exist mostly to make lean people feel smug,” writes Stephen Guyenet, “since it attributes their leanness entirely to wise voluntary decisions and a strong character. I think at this point, few people in the research world believe the CICO model.”"
This is a "lie by equivocation". Guyenet is a respectable scientist, who works on hunger signalling. When he talks about "CICO", he means "the model by which people just eat more as a purely voluntary thing and gain weight". And he is totally right that no-one thinks weight-gain is purely voluntary. Even the "hyper palatable food" people don't think that. But that isn't what SMTM mean by CICO. Here is what SMTM say:
"A popular theory of obesity is that it’s simply a question of calories in versus calories out (CICO). You eat a certain number of calories every day, and you expend some number of calories based on your metabolic needs and physical activity. If you eat more calories than you expend, you store the excess as fat and gain weight, and if you expend more than you eat, you burn fat and lose weight. This perspective assumes that the body stores every extra calorie you eat as body fat, and that it doesn’t have any tools for using more or less energy as the need arises. But this isn’t the case. Your body has the ability to regulate things like its temperature, and it has similar tools to regulate body fatness. When we look closely, it turns out that “calories in, calories out” doesn’t match the actual facts of consumption and weight gain."
So SMTM are misrepresenting what a hunger scientist means to gain a little bit more epistemic credibility for their take. He is talking about what drives hunger, which leads to increased energy intake. They're talking about mechanisms for bodily fat regulation.
To be clear I think you've misunderstood me here, and that may be my fault. But, to clarify, I'm not saying anything, really, about the laymans' beliefs. Whenever I talk about "people believing x", I'm meaning "people who research diets and such". I don't care what laymen believe. As I said, laymen believe all sorts of silly stuff in all sorts of fields. But laypeople disproportionately believing astrology would not, for sake of argument, mandate that we do more research showing why astrology is bunk (no, I am not comparing the arguments of SMTM to astrology, I am only using the comparison for the specific point here about laymen and their irrelevance to research). It might be the case that we should do more to educate laypeople on matters of calories and and weight-gain and all the adjacent funky stuff too. But none of this requires more research.
Actually my second quote does make it clear "not a soul writing in the literature today"- so I think that one is on you, but the first is on me, fair enough.
"What makes you think SMTM believe this?"
All of the talk about mechanisms for dumping fat, in relation to changes in weight at the population level. Also their later commentary about diets basically not being possibly workable, which would only be true if there was some mechanism meaning people retained fat way more than others, instead of "some people have disproportionately strong hunger signalling relative to others". But mostly the prior stuff.
"If you eat more calories than you expend, you store the excess as fat and gain weight, and if you expend more than you eat, you burn fat and lose weight.
This perspective assumes that the body stores every extra calorie you eat as body fat, and that it doesn’t have any tools for using more or less energy as the need arises. But this isn’t the case. Your body has the ability to regulate things like its temperature, and it has similar tools to regulate body fatness."
So we have this. In the same article, we also have them talking about how fat and carbohydrate consumption have gone down, yet obesity has gone up. Frankly, if they sincerely believe people are eating less (I do not believe this to be true, I think we have good reasons to think this is not true), then its' not just hunger-signalling that they're talking about as being a difference maker.