= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Final: The Truth About Diets and Weight Loss - 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 (87)
Well I suppose that Taubes' supporters would argue that protein provides extra satiation. Not that it really matters, because there doesn't seem to be a magic balance of macronutrients which lets you eat ad libitum; get and stay thin; and avoid the problem of difficult-to-resist eating urges.
Yes. You know, I have wondered about the chart which shows an average long term weight loss of 5 extra pounds among low-carb dieters. How much of that 5 pounds is water?
I think you mean the "easiest to stick to diet." But anyway, we need to be clear about what "healthiest" means. It occurs to me that "healthy" is multi-dimensional when it comes to food. That said, if your point is that on balance, being a few pounds lighter from low-carb dieting is not necessarily a net benefit in terms of cardiovascular health; metabolic health; etc., I would have to agree with you.
Obesity is a very recent problem, though, so there's something that could be done for majority of people - if anything, rolling back a few decades on as many things as you can (within reason of course) should work well.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, easiest to resist eating too much with. On normal diets, sticking to the diet is all about resisting the slippery slope of eating more of the same things, but on a very weird diet, sticking to the diet is about merely not buying things proclaimed 'bad', which may be easier. After all we all have mechanisms for resisting the urge to eat colourful, tasty looking berries that are known to be poisonous. It could be psychologically easier to label some things as "poisons" and not eat them, than to limit the amounts.
Agreed, although that sort of subsumes the problem of difficult-to-resist urges. A few decades ago, there were not jumbo slices of pizza available for a dollar on every street corner; there were not hot dogs for a dollar at gas stations and movie theaters; and so on.
It's probably also worth noting that a few decades ago, cigarette smoking was a much more acceptable diet strategy.
I agree, except that I might quibble with your definition of "normal diet."
Yes, and then the next questions are (1) what foods or types of foods are, if treated as "poison," likely to lead to an effective diet; and (2) what is the health cost to eliminating such foods.
In my non-professional opinion, the answer to the first question is the foods which are normally referred to as "junk food" or "comfort food." The answer to the second question is (again in my non-professional opinion) that there is no health cost at all and in fact you are better off without such food in your life.
A lot of people didn't smoke but didn't get overweight either. And today people routinely consume far more potent stimulants (ADHD medications).
Yeah, agreed. Ethics also works - e.g. there's hardly any overweight vegetarians. (At least none that I know)
I agree, I'm not saying that smoking is the main reason people were thinner a few decades ago but surely it played a roll. It was very common back in the 70s and 80s for people to take up smoking as a weight control measure, either intentionally or unintentionally -- it was inexpensive and no prescription was necessary. It was really common to see thin guys walking around with a pack of cigarettes tucked into their shirt sleeve.
Assuming that's the case, one can ask why such an approach might be effective. Is it because meat makes you fat? Is it because eliminating meat and meat derived food from one's diet is a good way to cut out junk food? (I wouldn't think so; how hard is it to make vegetarian french fries and donuts?)
I'm inclined to believe that identity is a good way to motivate oneself. If you think to yourself "I'm a vegetarian and vegetarians don't eat that kind of food" or "I'm a foodie and foodies don't eat processed crap" or "I'm a fitness buff and fitness buffs don't pig out on nachos" it seems pretty effective.
It reminds me of the story of the Jewish girl who had a hard time resisting milk chocolate treats in the evening; so what she would do is eat a small piece of meat every night after dinner so that it would be non-kosher to eat the chocolate.
It's plain difficult to consume a lot of calories if you cut out meat and dairy products, I think (I tried to go vegetarian but couldn't manage to get enough calories, it's just too much work to eat enough not to go underweight. I don't eat junk food). Plus if you are changing your habits for some ethical reasons, you are not a hedonist to begin with.
It seems to me that huge majority of people who are successful at maintaining their weight never subscribe to any defined diets or calorie counting. I think that works like this - as you eat, you feel more and more full. You can just stop eating at an earlier point (when you don't feel entirely full) or at a later point. Also, for the dieters slowly gaining back everything - they still succeed to maintain the weight below the level that makes them take a drastic measure. It's just that this level is quite high, probably because only a level that high can justify a measure so drastic.
Is that so? What about french fries, donuts, and soda? Those things can be made without animal products, no?
Well that may be part of it. Perhaps part of it is that vegetarians spend a lot of mental energy thinking about what they are eating. My impression is that fat people tend to consume a lot of food without being fully consciously aware of it.
Are you talking about former fat people or never fat people?
Haven't got a deep frier, not a fan of french fries anyhow (not to the point of eating, what, 600 grams of them a day plus other stuff), prefer to eat at home. Also, sweets are a dessert. edit: and correct me if i'm wrong but with french fries something like half the calories come from fat, which is too much fat. Then, there's silicone oil, trans fats, a wide variety of carcinogenic chemicals produced at high temperatures....
Apparently, it is a common experience
Though I do cook baked potatoes quite often.
Never fat or only ever fat due to a depression or the like.
edit: with the presently obese, if they are to lose weight and keep it low, that would imply future behaviour inconsistent with past behaviour under same conditions, i.e. simply is not going to happen without significant psychological changes or the like.
That suggests to me that convenience and identity are playing important roles. One of the things which has changed over the last 20 or 30 years is that it's become a lot more convenient to eat junk food. At least that's my impression. As to the latter, it's hard to imagine a vegetarian walking into a typical fast food joint and ordering french fries -- even if the fries are cooked in vegetable oil.
Then I agree with you. Having studied this stuff pretty carefully, I've come to the conclusion that everyone has an internal system which regulates his urges to eat or not eat. For people who are naturally thin, the system works well even in the modern obesogenic environment. If that system does not work well, then conscious effort must be applied to override that system. Which is very difficult to do day after day after day. Which is why most weight loss attempts ultimately fail.
Yes, I agree with this. The fantasy is that one can make a few simple changes like reducing carbohydrate intake or eating oil every morning and thinness will naturally and easily follow. The reality is that one's psychology -- broadly defined -- must change.
I think you're looking wrong at it. Say, someone reaches the weight of X and then diets down to Y<X . At X they self regulated (consciously), at Y they didn't before, and won't in the future. There wasn't a complete failure to self regulate at all, the set point was set very high though.
edit: that is to say, it is when at the weight X that they want to be at the weight Y. At the weight Y, from prior history, they don't care to be at the weight Y . I'm looking at it from the point of trying to deduce control system's properties, and it seems we can explain it by modelling the control as stateless (except for the controlled variable) over long periods of time. edit2: i.e. I see the dieting behaviour as caused by weight; the weight drops, after some time the habits are lost and the behaviour ceases.
OTOH a sizeable fraction of the ones I've met are visibly underweight.
Which fraction of the population takes such medications?