Will the contaminant hypothesis of modern obesity be judged true by expert consensus before 2025?

441

Ṁ3.9K

Ṁ564

2025

chance

ALL

The contaminant theory of modern obesity posits that environmental contaminants cause the modern plague of obesity and explains why reasonable intuitions like “calories in, calories out” aren’t sufficient: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-hunger-part-i-mysteries/ But is it true? In five years let’s see if expert consensus (judged as experts I personally deem to be credible and worth listening to) accepts the hypothesis. For my standards this will require a burden of solid evidence backed replicated research. Closes early if consensus is reached early. Close date updated to 2025-04-09 11:59 pm Apr 2, 9:33pm: updated to three years as I screwed up the title, changing closing date to match that.

Get Ṁ200 play money

Related questions

Will US obesity be half or less of the current rate in 2050?

44% chance

69% chance

Affordable weight loss drugs before 2030?

60% chance

Will the contaminant hypothesis of modern obesity be judged true by expert consensus before 2032?

8% chance

44% chance

More than half of humans will be overweight or obese by end of 2035?

48% chance

Will GLP-1 agonists help stop or reverse the US obesity trend by end of 2027

73% chance

In 2050, will the general consensus among experts be that the concern over AI risk in the 2020s was justified?

77% chance

Will there be evidence of large scale data pollution operations by the end of 2025?

69% chance

[Metaculus] Will the CDC adopt a Health at Every Size approach towards addressing obesity before 2035?

Sort by:

sold Ṁ34 of YES

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium cross-posting from the other market

bought Ṁ20 of YES

Seeing how the lithium hypothesis explains so much and is linked to the potato diet, I'm inclined to believe SMTM will come with strong evidence, only problem is that conscensus takes time to shift

This is basically true if contaminants were to include any engineered food products (seed oils, soy, flavor additives, etc.) But narrowly defined this is probably not true, and even if it were “experts” want you fat, lazy, and dependent. It’s not a coincidence anything that makes people weak and compliant (fluoride in water, xenoestrogens in everything, polyester and plastics in fabrics or toys) is not just tolerated but actively promoted.

@Gigacasting I don't know why you believe fluoride in water or polyester / plastics in fabrics / toys makes people "weak and compliant". A market on those would be neat.

bought Ṁ1 of YES

I mean 3 years is a short timeframe and even I'm skeptical that it would resolve in that timeframe even a smoking gun appeared next year. It's mostly I wanted to ask this question and see if there's any movement, but at the same time I'm not sure how viable really long term markets on Manifold are so I decided to go short to attract attention and participation. I might put up a clone of this with a 10 year timeline as well. Would be interesting if we could have a feature for markets with multiple close dates or something so you could cash out portions of it at various time intervals.

bought Ṁ20 of NO

feels like free money, except for the odds of creator defection. academic consensus moves slowly.

bought Ṁ1 of NO

Lets say that consensus will be: "contaminants additionally disregulating hunger signalling" or "contaminants cause people to engage in lower activity reducing caloric consumption" but otherwise situation is well explained primarily by "people eat more, move less". Just that contaminants influence behavior and cause people to eat more and/or move less. Would it resolve yes or no?

bought Ṁ1 of NO

> Hmmm, I think your comment is confusing to me, because I found the data they were talking about? Thanks! So that was (a) confusing arrangement of files (calories file is not containing all calories data) (b) a bit poor quoting (I would advise protection against link rot and direct links in addition to link to general page) ------------ But my main objection is dismissal of CICO based on vague "Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases" (toy model: 2000 calories consumed, input changed from 2003 to 2300 - what happened with CICO balance? it increased from 3 to 300: 10 000% increase)

bought Ṁ1 of NO

Hmmm, I think your comment is confusing to me, because I found the data they were talking about? It says "Based on estimates from nutrient availability data." I think we haven't been measuring calorie data going back that far, but we have nutrient availability data, and that goes back to 1909, and that's what they specifically said they were citing. This specific file: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/50472/nutrients.xls?v=7795.8 Here's a screenshot in Excel: https://i.imgur.com/yCNsfDW.png In 1909 it estimates 3400 kilo calories, and in 1960 it estimates 3100 kilo calories. In 2010 the figures are up to 4000 kilo calories so we're eating more now than we were in either period, but my reading of the data supports their claims. I encourage you to dig into the data further if you disagree! In any case this is a prediction market, if the authors are wrong, free alpha for you I guess!

bought Ṁ20 of NO

> Have you read the series? Yes, and I stopped reading at > Pew says calorie intake in the US increased from 2,025 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,481 calories per day in 2010. The USDA Economic Research Service estimates that calorie intake in the US increased from 2,016 calories per day in 1970 to about 2,390 calories per day in 2014. Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases. from https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/11/a-chemical-hunger-part-ii-current-theories-of-obesity-are-inadequate/ Dismissal massive increase of caloric intake, while works becomes more and more sitting (probably only partially balanced by exercise becoming more trendy) is weird. That is 18% increase (2 016 -> 2 390 one). Note that given that baseline consumption the CICO balance could be massively, extremely increased. Complete dismissal of significant caloric intake while considering CICO is weird. If it is later considered it would be a good idea to mention that here. Contaminants may play role, but I expect it to be along "increases hunger" or similar. > Based on estimates from nutrient availability data, Americans actually ate more calories in 1909 than they did in 1960. Linked source gets back to 1970, not 1909 ( https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/50472/calories.xls?v=3648.9 - Calories table) I am willing to spend time on exploring contrarian amateurs but this seems really sloppy. Dismissing the most obvious theory "they simply eat more" with "Neither of these are jaw-dropping increases." for massive increase and utterly dismissing it is something that is not encouraging.

bought Ṁ1 of NO

They’re friends. They wrote the series before I was acquainted with them. We both entered and placed on the ACX book review contest. Have you read the series?

bought Ṁ1 of NO

> judged as experts I personally deem to be credible and worth listening to What is your relation to slimemoldtimemold.com ? Right now their post has mention of "cameo by friend of the blog Lars Doucet." ( https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/03/31/links-for-march-2022/ ) what probably increases a bit risk of judgment diverging from consensus, and not better in quality.

bought Ṁ20 of NO

I am expecting that it is result of - immobile life, only partially outweighed by exercise - that is done only by some people - super-dense (in terms of calories), superpalatable, cheap, highly advertised and highly available food - maybe some contaminants additionally disregulating hunger signalling Lets say that consensus will be: "contaminants additionally disregulating hunger signalling" but otherwise well explained primarily by "people eat more, move less" would it resolve yes or no? BTW, there is risk of more people getting comically obese and blaming something, anything - contaminants seem to be a nice target.