brazil84 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

63 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2007 03:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (336)

Comments (336)

Sort By: Old

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 22 December 2013 03:16:19PM 0 points [-]

And, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. Obese people don't have a hard time not-eating some foods, they have a hard time not eating in general.

Here's some research which may change your mind:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/3/835S.full

Food cravings are extremely common, particularly among women. Cravings are frequently reported for specific types of foods, including chocolate and foods high in both sugar and fat

One cannot discuss cravings, sugar and fat without discussing the role of chocolate. Chocolate is the most frequently craved food in North America

By the way, is it a surprise to you that chocolate holds the spot as the most craved food as opposed to, say, raw cauliflower?

Here's another big surprise for you:

Women in particular report extreme liking of or craving for foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)

Comment author: [deleted] 22 December 2013 07:11:57PM -1 points [-]

By the way, is it a surprise to you that chocolate holds the spot as the most craved food as opposed to, say, raw cauliflower?

Since chocolate contains a stimulant/euphoric drug, no, this is not surprising, and I even mentioned it.

What would be surprising is if we could see a correlation between obesity and cravings for specific non-chocolate items, or even some way of showing that people who don't eat chocolate are massively less likely to be obese.

Comment author: brazil84 22 December 2013 08:08:17PM 0 points [-]

Since chocolate contains a stimulant/euphoric drug, no, this is not surprising

So are you conceding that at least chocolate is a specific food or type of food which many obese people tend to have difficulty resisting?

And what of the claim that "Women in particular report extreme liking of or craving for foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)"

Do you dispute it? Is it a surprise to you?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 December 2013 11:25:44PM -1 points [-]

So are you conceding that at least chocolate is a specific food or type of food which many obese people tend to have difficulty resisting?

No, I'm saying that people have some difficulty resisting chocolate. That includes thin people.

Comment author: brazil84 23 December 2013 08:45:33AM 0 points [-]

No, I'm saying that people have some difficulty resisting chocolate. That includes thin people.

And "people" includes "obese people," agreed?

Also, please answer my other question:

Do you dispute the claim that "Women in particular report extreme liking of or craving for foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)"?

Is it a surprise to you?

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: brazil84 23 December 2013 01:22:22PM * 2 points [-]

Are we trying to find things out

Yes, I am trying to nail down your position so that I can figure out exactly where we disagree.

You keep trying to change the subject to the causes of obesity. Which is an important question but not the question I have been addressing.

The threshold question is whether there are certain foods or types of foods which are particularly difficult to resist.

If we agreed on that, then we could go on to discuss why such foods or types of foods are difficult to resist -- is it because they are super-stimulus foods or some other reason? We could also discuss the role such foods play in obesity at an individual or societal level. But those are different questions.

You seem to have denied that there exist certain foods or types of foods which are difficult to resist. However, you seem to have made an exception for chocolate.

I have presented evidence that there are other foods which are difficult to resist "foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)" -- at least for women.

You refuse to tell me if you dispute this evidence. Why are you playing hide the ball with your position?

Trust me, the sky won't fall if you simply admit that you were wrong.

Do you dispute the claim that "Women in particular report extreme liking of or craving for foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)"? (And if not, is it a surprise to you?) This is the last time I will ask.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 December 2013 01:32:27PM * -1 points [-]

If we agreed on that, then we could go on to discuss why such foods or types of foods are difficult to resist -- is it because they are super-stimulus foods or some other reason? We could also discuss the role such foods play in obesity at an individual or societal level. But those are different questions.

Ok, I've spotted the issue. I thought you were linking the two things: "These foods are hard to resist because they are superstimuli. Here, let me prove there are foods that are 'hard to resist' (whatever that means). Now that I've done so, it must be because they are superstimuli."

My problems with this are: you need to separate the experience of cravings in absence of food (ie: I can crave chocolate but not have chocolate) from the actual "difficulty to resist" (that needs definition) when the food item is in front of you. You then also need to define "superstimulus" such that the definition makes predictions, and justify belief in such a concept via showing that it applies to your examples of craved foods.

You seem to have denied that there exist certain foods or types of foods which are difficult to resist. However, you seem to have made an exception for chocolate.

I've made an "exception" for actual drugs, as separate from the other content of food.

To show what I mean, it should be plain that if I lace a pitcher of water with morphine, you will slowly develop an addiction to the water in my pitcher. This is not because water is difficult to resist, it's because I drugged the water. The fact that theobromide or caffeine occur naturally doesn't make the food "hard to resist", it makes it contain a drug.

I have presented evidence that there are other foods which are difficult to resist "foods that are both sweet and high in fat (e.g., candies, cakes or pastries, ice cream)" -- at least for women.

I don't see a working definition of "difficult to resist", is the issue. Lots of people get cravings and don't act on them, so getting a craving is not evidence that these women actually display less power of self-control when confronted with, say, cake, versus a control group.

In the same fashion, lots of people might say, "I need a damn drink!" when they're stressed-out, but the overwhelming majority of them don't become alcoholics, and most don't even actually take a drink!

Basically, you seem to my eyes to be failing to differentiate between "People like X" and "People can't control themselves around X".

Comment author: brazil84 23 December 2013 01:53:11PM 0 points [-]

I don't see a working definition of "difficult to resist", is the issue.

It's reasonable to believe that if people report "extreme liking of or craving," for certain foods or types of foods, then a large percentage of people will find such foods difficult to resist. No reasonable person would dispute this without very strong evidence.

But anyway, we can't even get to that point because you won't even concede that people (or at least women) report "extreme liking of or craving" for certain foods or types of foods. I asked you three times if you you disputed this claim and you ignored my question each time.

Instead, you have decided to strawman me:

Basically, you seem to my eyes to be failing to differentiate between "People like X" and "People can't control themselves around X".

There's a difference between "extreme liking or craving for X" and "liking X." There is also a difference between "people have difficulty resisting X" and "people can't control themselves around X."

Sorry, but I have no interest in engaging with people who insist on playing hide the ball with their position. Nor do I engage with people who exaggerate my position to make it sound unreasonable.

This exchange is concluded.

Goodbye.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 December 2013 11:47:18PM -1 points [-]

There is also a difference between "people have difficulty resisting X" and "people can't control themselves around X."

So... what is it?

Sorry, but I have no interest in engaging with people who insist on playing hide the ball with their position.

Why do you think I have a definite position? My "position" here is that the vocabulary for hypotheses is ill-formed. We have effectively spent an entire conversation saying nothing at all because the terms were never defined clearly.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 23 December 2013 03:50:36PM 0 points [-]

To show what I mean, it should be plain that if I lace a pitcher of water with morphine, you will slowly develop an addiction to the water in my pitcher. This is not because water is difficult to resist, it's because I drugged the water.

The Rat Park experiments suggest otherwise, at least as regards morphine.

brazil84 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (336)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (336)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login