Thermodynamics and willpower: The thin foundation for current thinking on obesity
A recent study elevates our understanding of metabolism throughout life — offering some real surprises. And an organic disruption of our normal metabolism might relate to the “systemic dysfunction” that Nathan Peirce points out in his post below. His post, however, is not about metabolism per se, but the current paradigm of thinking on obesity; that is, thermodynamics controlled by willpower. It’s the rickety, glib idea that we get fat when we consume more calories than we burn, so don’t do that. Obesity as an energy balance disorder is a faulty premise that health journalist Gary Taube exposes in a recent article in STAT.
As Nathan shows, fat or thin, the organism we’re talking about here has a recently evolved layer of higher intellectual processing wrapped around a primitive animal mind with communication issues between the two. That is, we’re complicated.
By Nathan Peirce
I’ve long believed we’ve got it all mixed up in terms of the connections between weight, obesity, health, and eating. And the flimsy excuse of thermodynamics to support it. Finally, my skeptical viewpoint on the current science of obesity seems to be gaining some traction.
For eons our culture, science, and medical practice (including the here and now) has assumed a causal sequence that goes like this…
▶ normal hunger + character flaw ➞ overeating ➞ weight gain ➞ obesity ➞ major health problems
But there isn’t good evidence that it works that way. In fact, there’s very good evidence that it doesn’t. But that concept became so enmeshed with identity, that the alternative is almost hard to imagine.
Well, this part works to some degree (although that might just be milder systemic dysfunction at work):
▶ normal hunger + character flaw ➞ overeating ➞ weight gain
…and this part works…
▶ weight gain ➞ obesity ➞ major physical health problem
…but there’s an embarrassing lack of good evidence that weight gain in the first chain is the same as weight gain in the second chain.
The actual situation(s) seems to be more like…
▶ normal hunger + character flaw ➞ overeating ➞ weight gain ➞ no big deal
…and…
▶ systemic dysfunction ➞ excessive hunger & excessive fat deposition
…breaking that down…
▶ systemic dysfunction ➞ excessive hunger ➞ overeating ➞ weight gain ➞ ???
…and…
▶ systemic dysfunction ➞ excessive fat deposition ➞ weight gain ➞ obesity ➞ major physical health problems
(Note the difference between “+” and “&” as used above: “+” indicates both are required to constitute the cause whereas “&” indicates both occur together as the effects.)
I doubt the second to last chain can be tested properly in terms of whether overeating is a causal link in the chain to obesity because excessive hunger and excessive fat deposition occur at the same time as a result of systemic dysfunction. Artificially suppressing one at that point in order to test it can give hints but maybe never real proof.
The last chain can be tested, though, because overeating can be suppressed naturally by removing food. We can deprive individuals with the relevant systemic dysfunction of food and they still don’t lose weight; they can even gain weight while half-starved. Yes, a single individual can be, all at the same time, not eating enough, becoming malnourished because of it, and still gain weight.
We can certainly intentionally eat more or less, and thereby change weight, to some degree, but that degree might be far more limited than we assume. For example, when a person exercises more, they tend to eat more, and it just balances out. More importantly, the degree to which it’s physically possible to change weight through diet may be enough to fit into a new pair of jeans, but not much more than that for most people. Despite all the social pressure, it’s rare that someone goes from obese to slim and keeps the weight off. That rarity suggests the average person’s biological system is far more automatic than we assume, unresponsive to willpower after some initial pounds come off.
In that way, it’s a lot like breathing. We can alter it, so we feel like we have control over it. But it turns out we rarely take control to breathe differently, and when we do, we can only do so within tight parameters. If we try to breathe too much or too little, our system neatly removes our illusion of control by “passing out” (giving the conscious part of the brain that’s making the bad decisions a time-out) while the older parts of the brain resume breathing as normal.
Other things work likewise. A lot of times the “animal brain” has already made a decision before the conscious mind is aware (sometimes never becomes aware of what’s going on under the hood), and then the conscious mind believes that it itself is what’s making the decisions and observations, merely because it is conscious and weaving the narratives, largely unaware of the “other” mind.
No longer just psychological modeling, we can see this happen now in real-time brain scans: The conscious mind comes to the wrong conclusion as to why a physiological response happens. Meanwhile, the other mind decides something is a threat (a bridge, for example), raises the blood pressure, dilates the pupils, pulls blood in towards the skeletal muscles, etc., and the conscious mind, not having got the memo, is left to interpret why this happens, sometimes coming up with the wrong answer: Maybe my body is responding this way because I’m very attracted to the person I’m talking with while crossing this bridge. But I never learn of my mistake (unless a psych study is going on).
We’ve essentially got an animal as the main driver, sitting in the power seat as is the case with other animals, surrounded by a newer neuronal overlay that pretends to be in charge, sharing one skull while barely communicating with one another.
What odd creatures we are. Animal children with delusions of sentient adulthood. No wonder our world is such a desperate, violent mess. The idea that obesity arises from a lack of willpower is judgmental, cruel, and wrong — one of many erroneous conclusions born of the disconnect between the higher and lower minds. And if we think this is true of others — but not of us, who are civilized, peaceful, and prosperous by comparison — we may also feel that we can steal the vicar’s robes and be holier by wearing them.
Originally published at http://kcroes.wordpress.com on September 25, 2021.
