= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (336)
I define it as food I see and eat in my home as well as food in the restaurants. I like yummy food and I see no reason to eat non-yummy food.
You seem to think that any tasty food is super-stimulus food. That's not how most people use the term.
Depends. There's a lot of bad pizza out there. You can get very good pizza but you can also get mediocre or bad pizza.
I don't see why this is relevant. Small children in general also like pasta and even you probably wouldn't consider it a super-stimulus food.
The dose make the poison. In small amounts or consumed rarely, pretty much no food or drink is unhealthy (of course there are a bunch of obvious exceptions for allergies, gluten- or lactose-intolerance, outright toxins, etc.).
With this caveat, I generally consider to be unhealthy things like the large variety of liquid sugar (e.g. soda or juice) or, say, hydrogenated fats (e.g margarine, many cookies).
I'm not sure what kind of food you keep in your home, but thinking on the fact that a huge percentage of American adults are overweight or obese, I would probably agree that "most food around" is super-stimulating.
Well you asked me why I consider pizza to be a problem. If you don't want to use the word "super-stimulus," it doesn't really affect my point. Pizza tastes good enough to most people that it's difficult to resist the urge to over-eat. That's my answer.
Oh come on. Please use the Principle of Charity if you engage me. When I assert that "pizza tastes really good," you know what I mean.
Well small children are naive enough to come right out and express a strong preference for the foods they love. And they don't beg their parents for pasta parties.
Well let me put the question a slightly different way: Do you agree that there exist certain foods which taste really good; which a lot of people have a problem with, which in many ways are like an addiction?
From what I remember, I did occasionally beg for pizza around that age, but if I'm modeling my early childhood psychology right that had as much to do with cultural/media influence as native preference. Pizza is the canonical party food in American children's media, and its prominence in e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles probably didn't help.
Media counts for a lot! Show of hands, who here found themselves craving Turkish delight after reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe without actually knowing what it was?
Do you agree that part of the reason kids beg for pizza is that it tastes really good?
Let me ask you this: If you gave lab rats a choice between pizza and oatmeal, which do you think they would choose?
I don't know the answer to this, but I'd caution against using lab rats, which, keep in mind, have quite different dietary needs, as an indicator of human dietary preferences.
Well you are capable of estimating some probabilities, no? I agree that caution is in order, but I feel pretty confident, perhaps 90% probability, that lab rats will choose pizza over oatmeal.
Here's a study which might affect your probability assessments:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060407
I'd take the other side of the bet. Anybody willing to test this?
I think pizza, at least in the United States and during the years around my own childhood, occupied a cultural position that's not fully describable in terms of its nutritional content. Stimulus concerns are sufficient to explain favoring it over something like (plain) oatmeal, but not over something like spaghetti and meatballs or chicken-fried steak.
I'm told curry occupies a similar position in Japan. Other cultures probably have their own equivalents.
Ok, I guess I read your first post too quickly. You don't seem to dispute my basic claim that pizza tastes really good. You also don't seem to dispute my claim that children's preference for pizza is evidence of this. Because whatever food children beg for -- whether it's pizza, hot dogs, or curry -- is probably going to be something that tastes good.
I do agree that children ask for pizza -- as opposed to other tasty foods -- for cultural reasons. But I don't think that contradicts any argument I have made.
My kids didn't want pizza (pretty much ever), until they started school, and then they wanted pizza primarily when having friends over. I think its more social/cultural then anything else.
Also, they are pizza snobs- I'm not allowed to order from a local place because its "too salty, and too greasy." They'd prefer no pizza, or a usual dinner (stir fry or something) to the wrong pizza.
Also, I'm not sure if "super stimulus" food are super stimulus consistently. I hate fast food burgers, and have since I was little (but sit me down in a hole-in-the-wall mexican place and I'll eat until I wish I was dead).
Just adding a few anecdotes.
Well do you agree that despite your experiences, there do seem to be certain foods which are considered tasty and difficult to resist by large numbers of people?
I actually live in a fairly healthy "bubble," I don't know many significantly overweight people. I know the stereotypes, I guess, that fat people guzzle sodas and pound mcdonalds.
I guess the one example of someone who eats typical bad-for-you foods is my wife's sister who basically grew up only eating burgers (an extremely picky eater with very permissive parents. She still pretty much only eats burgers). But she weighs 125 lbs and runs marathons.
But again, these are my selective anecdotes. I don't claim representative knowledge.
And the overweight people you know don't seem to have any specific foods or types of foods which they have trouble resisting?
Anecdote time! There was a period when I loved pasta but wouldn't eat pizza because I had not yet grasped that Tomatoes Are Awesome. Also that book made me classify Turkish Delight as a drug, and Drugs Are Bad don'tcha know. And then when I finally got some I realized it also tastes bad.
Turkish Delight isn't just one thing. I've had mediocre bright-colored (and probably artificially flavored) turkish delight, and delicious fresh transparent turkish delight flavored with rose water. If you care about the subject, you should see if you have access to a middle eastern shop where you can get the good stuff.
Tentative theory: the good stuff isn't packaged, so it has to be fresh. If it wasn't fresh, it would have dried out.
Thanks for the tip! The only Turkish delight I remember having was bright-colored and came in a box.
Sigh. So you really think that the cause of obesity is that food is just too yummy, too attractive?
Before you answer, think about different countries, other than US. Japan, maybe? France?
Please try to avoid the typical mind fallacy. People around me don't seem to have the urge to overeat pizza. A lot of them just don't like it, others might eat a slice once in a while but no more. Nobody is obsessed with pizza and I doubt many will agree that "pizza tastes really good" -- they'll either say "it depends" or shrug and say that pizza is basic cheap food, to be grabbed on the run when hungry.
No one -- not a single person around me -- shows signs of having to exert significant will power to avoid stuffing her face with pizza.
Presumably there is a logical "AND" between you sentence parts. Depends on what do you mean by "taste really good" (see above about pizza) and by "a lot".
People generally overeat not because the food is too yummy. People generally overeat for hormonal and psychological reasons.
What is your hypothesis for why obesity rates have exploded to such an extent in the last several decades?
Oh, dear. There are what, a few dozens of books on the topic, not to mention uncountable papers and articles?
I think it's complicated and not attributable to a single easy-to-isolate factor.
Well, here's an easy one that I've even got some empirical evidence for: refined sugars being added to common foods where you simply don't expect sugars to be.
I know that when I'm here in Israel, I have an easy time controlling my eating (to the point that skipping meals sometimes becomes my default), but when I'm in the States, I have a very hard time controlling my eating. I've noticed that when I even partially cut refined sugars from my diet, I get through the day with a much clearer mind, particularly in the realm of executive/self-disciplining functions. It's to the point that I'm noticeably more productive at work without refined sugar.
There are lots of differences in diet between Israel and the USA, but the single biggest background factor is that in Israel, sweets are sweets and not-sweets are not sweetened. Whereas in the US, everything but the very rawest raw ingredients (ie: including sliced bread) has some added refined sugars.
With a large background level of "derp drug" in your basic foodstuffs, it's probably quite easy to suffer blood-sugar problems, get cravings, and lose a degree of focus and self-control. It's certainly what I experience when I'm there.
ISTM that for me in the short run it's the other way round, but that's probably got to do with the fact that most of my sources of refined sugars are sources of caffeine and water as well.
Try unsweetened black tea or coffee. Seriously: it works wonders.
Absolutely. (And too available.)
I've been thinking about this question pretty intensely for a couple years now.
Where did you get the impression that I am going just by my own experiences?
Roughly what percentage of the people around you are overweight or obese? Of those who are overweight or obese, do they seem to have the urge to eat any foods or types of foods to excess?
For purposes of this exchange, I will define "taste really good" as being at the high end of "yummy." Since you used the word "yummy" before, you presumably know what you meant.
I will define "a lot" as more than 5 million Americans.
Ok, now do you agree that there exist certain foods which (1) are considered to be very yummy by a majority of Americans; (2) which a lot of Americans have a problem with (in the sense that they have difficulty controlling their consumption of these foods); and (3) which are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)
Well then, you have an unusual viewpoint :-) Any evidence to support it?
Because you didn't offer any data or other evidence. It looked just like a classic stereotype -- look at all these fat Americans who can't stop shoving pizzas into their pieholes!
10-15%, maybe?
Nope, not to my knowledge. Of course some might be wolfing down bags of cookies in the middle of the night, but I don't know about it :-)
I will still say no because I don't think food is addictive. But let me try to see where to do you want to get to.
Let's take full-sugar soda, e.g. Coca-Cola. There certainly has been lots of accusatory fingers pointed at it. The majority of Americans drinks it, so I guess (1) is kinda satisfied. Do people have difficulty controlling their consumption of it? Yep, so (2) fits as well. On the other hand, these people tend to have difficulty controlling a lot of things in their lives, for example credit cards, so I'm not sure there is anything food-specific going on here. Is it like an addiction? Nope, I don't think so. "Knowing professional advice" is way too low an incentive for people to change their ways.
You're not doing it either, y'know.
I think you have now (re?)defined at least two words, super-stimulus and addictive, to fit your purposes. Tobacco doesn't fit your definition of addictive either.
I'm neither proposing nor defending a hypothesis.
I did define "super-stimulus", but I don't think I tried to define "addictive" (and that's a slippery word, often defined to suit a particular stance).
Have you read this relevant article? It's confusing when you say you're disagreeing with a definition, when you actually mean you're disagreeing with the connotation.
I am not sure what are you referring to...?
Addiction is "a slippery word, often defined to suit a particular stance".
Super-stimulus is "mostly used to demonize certain "bad" things (notably, sugar and salt) with the implication that people can't just help themselves and so need the government (or another nanny) to step in and impose rules.".
Sure, you finally explicitly said these things but you could have said you disagreed with the connotations in the first place, which would have made the discussion about definitions pointless and perhaps dissolved some disagreement.
I do, but I prefer to stay focused on the subject at hand.
Let's see if I have this straight -- any time someone makes a generalization about human nature without simultaneously volunteering data or other evidence, one can reasonably assume that they are engaged in the typical mind fallacy? Do I understand you correctly?
And of those 10-15%, roughly what percentage have tried to lose weight and failed?
So let's see if I understand your position:
You deny that there are a lot of people who consume certain foods even while knowing that they are consuming too much food?
If it contradicts one's personal experience then yes, one can reasonably assume. Subject to being corrected by evidence, of course.
I don't know. None of them visibly yo-yos. Pretty much everyone once in a while says "I could lose a few pounds", but it's meaningless small talk on the order of "Weather is beastly today, eh?"
No, I don't deny that, I just think that the word "addiction" is not the appropriate one.
Well your personal experience contradicts mine. So please try to avoid engaging in the Lumifer Typical Mind Fallacy. Thank you.
But you do know that none of them have a difficult-to-resist urge to eat certain foods or types of foods?
Well please answer the question I asked and not the question you imagine I had asked.
I asked (among other things) if there were certain foods which "are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)"
I was careful to say "like an addiction" and to describe what I actually meant.
So it seems you DO agree with me that there exist certain foods which (1) are considered to be very yummy by a majority of Americans; (2) which a lot of Americans have a problem with (in the sense that they have difficulty controlling their consumption of these foods); and (3) which are like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)
Right?
Good. Do notice that, as opposed to you, I did not attempt to "make a generalization about human nature" on the basis of my personal experience.
Of course not.
I am not inclined to play fisking games (or lets-adjust-this-definition-to-split-the-hair-in-half games) on these forums. No, I do not agree with you. You have enough information to figure out how and why.
Ummm, here's one thing you said before:
You didn't offer any evidence or data to back this up.
It contradicts my personal experience.
Therefore you have committed the Lumifer Typical Mind Fallacy.
Please try to avoid it in the future.
Lol, then your personal experience doesn't even contradict my basic point.
Say what? You just redefined my words so that you could answer a different question.
I asked (among other things) if you agreed that there are foods which are "like an addiction (in the sense that some people feel compelled to overconsume such foods despite knowing or having received professional advice that they are consuming too much food)"
You reinterpreted that question as though I was asking whether certain foods are addictive. So that you could easily answer "no" using your own definition of "addictive."
Please answer the question I asked -- not the question you wish or imagine I asked.
Yes, I have enough information to make a pretty good guess as to why you are evading my question.
Contrary opinion:
Also, while I don't find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I've had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.
Interesting. I just get such consistent meat cravings that I don't even bother trying to not eat meat. I just buy a certain amount and eat it as a basic food group.
Yes, I am aware that such exist :-)
It's really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word "addiction" to. As such it's not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it's an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).
It's human to succumb to temptations. Not all temptations are addictions.
Succumbing to a temptation occasionally is one thing. But even a single case of that happening leading to a month-long relapse? That's much more addiction-ish.
The government can regulate or ban things as public health risks which are not deemed addictions though, and things which are recognized as addictive are not necessarily regulated or banned.
All true, but if you look at it from a different side: if you want to regulate or ban something, would you rather call it an addiction or an unfortunate exercise of the freedom choice? :-)
Well, the latter characterization would certainly not aid me in my attempts to get it banned, but if calling it an addiction were likely to result in semantic squabbling, I'd probably just call it a public health risk.
If you're liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction? I'm not sure if politics connotatively hijacking scientific terminology is a good reason to change the terminology. Would you suggest something like that?
Casomorphins in dairy have opioid effects, as does chocolate. Overconsumption of high-sugar high-fat foods alters opioid receptors in the brain. Naloxone, a drug for treating opiate overdose, is effective in reducing binging.
It also seems that food scientists specifically try to make food as addictive as possible, which seems like an expected outcome from a capitalist food market -- whatever encourages the most consumption will win greater market share.
Is it an addiction on par with heroin, alcohol, or tobacco? I doubt it, but using an addiction model might be helpful in treating overeating.
Don't have links handy but my impression is that this was tried, lots of times, and failed badly.
As to the general question of food being addictive, this is mostly an issue of how you define "addictive". I find it useful to draw boundaries so that food (as well as, say, sex or internet) do not fall within them.
On the other hand, I don't see a sharp divide between "food" and "drugs". Eating certain kinds of food clearly has certain biochemical consequences.
What word would you use for people who eat so much they can't move, get HIV from prostitutes, or play WoW with such dedication they die? These people clearly have something in common, and it's definitely more specific than stupidity.
That is not self-evident to me.
Sick (in the medical sense, I bet their hormonal system is completely screwed up).
Regular guys with bad judgement and worse luck.
Guys who do not know their limits.
An unlucky choice of examples, I guess. Switch the question to "could brains that can't seem to be able to regulate their behaviour to the point they're severely damaged by it have something in common in their basic physiology that predisposes them to dysregulation when exposed to certain sensory stimuli?" This is still vague enough there's room for evasion, so if you want to continue that way, I suppose it's better we forget about this.
I'd guess it's got to do with affordability and convenience as well as taste. If I had to cook my own food or spend a sizeable fraction of my monthly wage on it, I would be much less likely to eat it unless I'm really hungry, no matter how good it tasted.
I would agree, but the same thing could be said about pretty much any super-stimulating good or service. If a dose of heroin were available for a nickel at any convenience store, then probably a lot more people would abuse heroin.