= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 3: Did the US Government Give Us Absurd Advice About Sugar? - 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)
Comments (152)
This assumes that the average person can meaningful succeed in his attempt to eat less and beat his hunger. What people eat has a lot to do with the desires of the body for food and if you starve a body of fat that has consequences.
Such as? And if you just lower the fat intake?
Hunger. Jojo dieting is a huge failure mode.
The German word "jo-jo" corresponds to the English word "yo-yo."
Thanks. Those words that sound the same way but are spelled differently lend themselves to mistakes.
This is the crux of it: If you wanna weigh less, you gotta eat less.
Tell a person who"s 1.60 meter tall and who wants to be taller: If you want to be taller you need to grow more.
But there are adults who've lost a sizeable fraction of their body weight without any surgery, whereas hardly anybody grows taller.
Oh my god.
As I've said, losing weight is much more complex than just eating less... but the center of the issue is calorie control.
This is an issue where I think LW has collectively lost its mind.
Mainstream health advice with is centered around that maxim has failed to provide people who want to lose weight with a way that performs well.
What kind of evidence makes you think that a nutrition strategy should be centered around that maxim?
You'll have to restate this.
If you look at a modern home you can see that the surface area of heating equipment is important for a warm home. You could run and tell people who want warmer homes to increase that surface area.
In reality a much better advice is to turn the thermostat. You can be right about some parts but still miss the point.
There are multiple ways you can theoretically approach weight loss.
I think that calorie control is a center piece of the mainstream view.
As far as I can see preaching calorie control is not effective.
Gary Taubes focuses on reducing eating carbohydrates that raise insulin.
Another approach would be Seth Roberts set point frame. If you follow it than you give people nose clips and let them drink a bit of oil.
There are people who practice hypnosis who also operate on the set point model.
There are people who tell you that the key is about starting to listen to your body and perceive signals from it that most people ignore.
There seems to be an anti-pattern for certain kinds of problems that involve one's habits, lifestyle, or emotions. The anti-pattern is that many people who do not experience the problem claim that the problem is easily solvable; whereas many people who do experience the problem claim that it is not easily solved.
People who have previously experienced the problem may fall into either category; whether they do seems to have something to do with how much continuity (or compassion?) they feel between their current self and their problem-having past self; or whether they have retained awareness of the specific transitions involved in solving the problem. (Kinda like some of the difficulties moridinamael recently pointed out regarding programming tutorials. Just because you've achieved X does not automatically make you a good guide for others who want to achieve X.)
This seems related to one of the things that folks who use the word "privilege" mean by it sometimes. We can probably come up with some less politically charged word for this specific anti-pattern, though.
Dunno if it's not mainstream enough for you, but FWIW as of now the average rating of The Hacker's Diet on Goodreads is 3.85 out of 5.
I don't think that the Hacker"s diet is a mainstream work. It"s not written by a nutrition professor or by a government health agency but by a tech CEO.
I don't think that says much. The number also happens to be lower than Gary Taubnes Good Calories, Bad Calories.
As far as the Hackers diet itself goes, it preaches to measure weight with moving averages and make decisions based on that measurement.
As far as I know you can't even buy a scale that does moving averages automatically that's how non-mainstream the recommendations of the hackers diet happens to be.
I think if you ask most mainstream health folks what they think about moving averages for weight measurements they have no idea what you are talking about.
In a world where studies indicate that people who weight themselves daily lose more weight, a lot of mainstream health advice recommends against daily weighting to avoid negative emotions associated with seeing your weight.
I see nobody funding a study to see whether a scale that measures someone weight and then gives them the moving average performs against a scale that just tells people their weight directly.
Mainstream nutrition researchers focus to much on food to investigate theories like that.
<nitpick>You can, but AFAICT it costs about an order of magnitude more than one that doesn't.</nitpick>
If one wants to get simplistic, saying "calorie control" is horribly wrong as a first approximation.
It's calories versus metabolism. That at least recognizes a trade off, instead of picturing calorie control as a single unopposed knob to tune your weight.
And yet there are people who can eat a lot without gaining weight.