A good synapses of how we were duped into getting fat

Here’s a great post from Matt Ridley on the conventional, but wrong, wisdom of low-fat diets. He writes:

There is a strong possibility that the “diabesity” epidemic has been caused largely by the diet police themselves.

The chief source of the anti-saturated-fat message was a politically astute scientist named Ancel Keys. In 1961 he persuaded the American Heart Association to issue guidelines on saturated fat intake. The main evidence came from his study of heart disease in six countries in Europe plus Japan, from which he concluded that low-fat diets led to less heart disease.

…the fat effect was weak: an order of magnitude less than the effect of cigarettes on cancer, for example.

Ridley’s writing here is based on the work of Nina Tiecholz, which I wrote about here and appears to be nearly identical to the work that Gary Taubes did in his books, who I’ve written about before, as well.

This from Ridley’s post is also interesting:

In the past ten years, study after rigorous study has found that animal fat per se is not harmful, does not cause obesity, does not raise the kinds of cholesterol that predict heart attacks, does not increase death rate and is healthier than carbohydrates. For instance, one two-year trial in Israel found that a fat-and-meat “Atkins” diet lowered weight more than either a low-fat or a Mediterranean diet. As Teicholz puts it in her book: “Every plank in the case against saturated fat has, upon rigorous examination, crumbled away.”

Such findings remain too heretical for most diet experts. Those who make them struggle for years to get published and have to couch their findings in cautious language. Those such as Teicholz and Gary Taubes who write books pointing out that this fat emperor had no clothes are treated as pariahs. If anything, the official committees of the diet police are doubling down, demanding that we eat ever less saturated fat.

If you are at all interested in losing weight, Gary Taubes’ books are worth a read.

Good Point

Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit, sums up Matt Ridley’s last Wall Street Journal column nicely: “Science is about evidence, not consensus.

lol

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley writes about the climate change nonscience. One passage, in particular, made me laugh out loud (emphasis added):

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC’s existing 2°-4.5°C “likely” range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization’s record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

 

This has all happened before, it will all happen again

From the book Why Nations Fail (p. 143):

The Maya experience illustrates not only the possibility of growth under extractive institutions but also another fundamental limit to this type of growth: the political instability that emerges and ultimately leads to collapse of both society and state as different groups and people fight to become the extractors.

In their book, Acemoglu and Robinson paint the picture of societies that rise, partially due to the benefits provided government — protection and enforcement of rule of law — then fall, after government is taken over by people who convert political power of law and order into institutions that extract value from society for the bureaucrat’s own benefit.

In this post, I wrote:

I like to think of government as a partner in the prosperity of its citizens. The more prosperous the citizens, the better this partner does. If you had a similar partnership with someone and you kept demanding more from him as if you were entitled to the produce of his talents, at what point do you think he would say enough is enough?

When the partnership turns into a lord-serf relationship, that’s when.

This story is consistent in other human organizations, not just overall societies. Matt Ridley wrote about it at the firm level in the Rational Optimist. I excerpted him in this post.

Far from being able to spend their way into novelty and growth, companies are perpetually discovering that their R&D budgets get captured by increasingly defensive and complacent corporate bureaucrats, who spend them on low-risk, dull projects and fail to notice gigantic new opportunities, which thereby turn into threats.

Bureaucrats gain control over a successful business and extract value from it for their own benefit, and their own extractive actions reduce innovation — which eventually kills the business.

“Energetic Government”

In the American Enterprise Institute’s Debate, How Much Government is Good Government?, David Brooks makes a case for an “energetic government” that “builds character.”

I believe the following passage from Brooks provides the key assumption for his energetic government stance:

…the reason that America got rich in the nineteenth century was because we were the most educated country on earth, and we could count on a certain level of social capital we no longer can.

I don’t believe that’s why America “got rich”.

To me, that’s like saying, I got rich by saving for retirement.  That’s not accurate.  You were able to save for retirement, and become rich, by creating enough value for others to generate an income for yourself.

Similarly, I believe the cause and effect flows the other way from how Brooks describes it.  America became the most educated country on earth, with a certain level of social capital [i.e. things like public education, social security, unemployment, etc.], because America “got rich”.

America got rich through bottoms-up innovations enabled by the most democratic, fair and socially mobile system the world has ever witnessed, capitalism.

If Brooks were to consider that he is wrong about how America got rich and wanted to learn other possible explanations, I’d recommend that he start with Matt Ridley’s book The Rational OptimistThis post and this one discuss some of Ridley’s, and my own, insights on the matter.

Of course, Matt and I could be wrong, but I have not found convincing evidence of that yet.  But, would love to hear some.

Star Wars Geek Friday

Palpatine

Tyrants aren't often this ugly

Those familiar with the Star Wars universe know that episodes 4 through 6 were produced and released in the 70s and 80s and episodes 1 through 3 were released in the late 90s and 00s, making for an interesting way to tell a story.

As I’ve watched the whole series over again and again with my Star Wars-crazed kid, I’ve noticed some elements worth mentioning because they bear some resemblance to real life.

First, the story of Palpatine’s ascent to tyrant and his consolidation of political power is really well done and vastly under appreciated.  He led both sides in a war meant to soften political opposition to his consolidation of power.

He used the war he created to get the other Senators to vote him emergency power, promising to return it when the conflict was over.  He never relinquished that power.

I was reminded of this storyline this week when I heard talks of granting the President emergency power to raise the debt limit.  The parallel is stark.  Palpatine created the emergency to get the Senate to grant him emergency power.  Obama created the spending emergency, both by spending a bunch and by waiting until the debt limit was about to be reached before trying to do something about it, to get politicians talking about giving the President emergency powers to raise the debt limit.  Though few people draw this connection.

In fact, when the Senate does vote to give Palpatine those emergency powers and applauds his acceptance speech, the unwitting pawn that granted Palpatine’s first step of his ascent, Padme Amidala says:

So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.

Second, if you watch the series from Episodes 1 through 6 in order, you will notice that Episode 4, Star Wars, picks up about 25 or 30 years after Episode 3.   In Episode 3, Palpatine and Vader take control of the galaxy and begin their reign.  Episode 4 begins after 25 or 30 years of that reign.

You will also notice that the technology in Episode 4 is rudimentary compared to the technology in Episode 3.  This is a common criticism of the series.  Star Wars was 30 years after Revenge of the Sith and the technology looks so bad.  After all, the fastest ship in the galaxy, the Millienium Falcon, was a bucket of bolts.  I personally think that criticism is unfounded.

While the appearance of the technology is a natural artifact of producing Episode 4 twenty years before Episode 3, it also bears a striking parallel to reality.

Once the galaxy comes under top-down control, there’s a really good chance that the state of technology would go backwards.  In his book, The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley wrote this about China:

China went from a state of economic and technological exuberance in around A.D. 1000 to one of dense population, agrarian backwardness and desperate poverty in 1950.  According to Angus Maddison’s estimates, it was the only region in the world with a lower GDP per capita in 1950 than in 1000.  The blame for this lies squarely with China’s governments.

To be clear, China’s governments became top-down empires, much like George Lucas’ Empire (except they didn’t have space ships).  So, even though the lapse of technological innovation derived from the production schedule of the movies, it fits.

Health care and obesity

Recently, Matt Ridley posted a piece on his blog entitled Thinning Vouchers. The idea is to give vouchers to overweight folks and allow them to use them to find ways to lose weight.

Personally, I think this is a bad idea.   First, I don’t see where government is authorized to do this.  Second, I doubt it would be effective.  And third, perhaps we should more carefully consider incentives that contribute to obesity.

Much is made about the obesity rate in the U.S.  I’m assuming it’s higher than rates in countries with socialized medicine.  Some might point to the socialized health care of those countries and I think they would be onto something.

There’s a chance that the folks in those countries take better care of themselves because they want to avoid using their beloved health system.  In their heart of hearts they want to avoid the long wait times, the chances of getting an infection with extended stays and the overall poor quality for more serious ailments.

In the U.S., we essentially have a socialized system without much of the third-party rationing yet (which is one reason we spend such a high percent of GDP).  Folks have less incentive to take care of themselves.  When they need treatment, it’s usually convenient and often it’s covered with little out-of-pocket expense.

If this is correct, this would suggest that there could be two health care options for reducing obesity:

  1. Let third-parties ration down to the same level of GDP as other countries to lower the quality enough to cause people to want to avoid it.
  2. Letting folks pay more of their medical costs.