5 ms·

This is something that irritates me to the point of irrationality. Why so many people spend so much time and resources on $name diets, questionable research, n

by badosu 10y ago

This is something that irritates me to the point of irrationality. Why so many people spend so much time and resources on $name diets, questionable research, news about how 'xyz' is good for you while 'abc' is bad, exercises to eliminate calories in 30 days, exercises to remove localized fat etc? All of this is shown to be evidently bullshit for decades for the minimally rational observer. Meanwhile the knowledge of what works is blatantly obvious: the energy expenditure must be higher than the intake. Having a healthy diet and exercise regimen along that is highly desirable but not strictly necessary, stating this just because understanding the core concept is more important than sheepishly believing the latest fad. Also that this is a process that takes a lot of time and is not a one-off procedure but a process of learning life-changing habits. I'd like to remark that this is not easy at all! In fact is really hard due to the inherent biological and societal tricks that play on our minds. But if people are already suffering psychologically and financially with this, why don't just try the basics? I understand how this is incentivized by an industry that extracts money from desperate people trying very hard to feel accepted by what society indicates as an acceptable and desirable appearance. The irony is that the failure of their latest hope is what makes them unable to understand that the problem is much simpler (not easy), and only try again on a more desperate attempt with the latest extreme measure. At least if people would be honest enough to blame themselves for their bad habits (lack of a healthy diet and exercise regimen) they could start the process of accepting what they are as a result of their choices, and finally notice that they have some agency on this. I am not talking here about existent mental and biological disorders of course and would not downplay their role. Sorry for the rant, the only way I can rationalize that this exists is that there are people that deny the existence of climate change.

CharlesW 10y ago
> Meanwhile the knowledge of what works is blatantly obvious: the energy expenditure must be higher than the intake. This is like saying about the poor, "What works is blatantly obvious: Poor people just need to increase income or reduce expenditures. Boom! Poverty solved." The secret is that this isn't the problem. The actual problem that fat people must solve is not what to do, but how to do it, both in the short- and long-term. > Having a healthy diet and exercise regimen along that is highly desirable but not strictly necessary... 1,000 calories of cupcake are 1,000 calories of chicken breast are, in theory, the same amount of energy. In practice, diet and exercise considerations are integral aspects of the actual problem that fat people must solve. Example: For some, exercise is actually counter-productive and causes more hunger. For others, exercise is a crucial part of success. Example: For some, calorie restriction can be done with no particular attention paid to the balance of carbs, proteins, and fats. For others, a low-carb diet means lower hunger/higher satiation for longer and is a must for success.
- badosu 10y ago
  > The secret is that this isn't the problem. The actual problem that fat people must solve is not what to do, but how to do it, both in the short- and long-term. You're right, it just gets to my nerves as this is a source of huge suffering to most people and there's an industry specialized to prey on this.
  - CharlesW 10y ago
    Couldn't agree more!
    - badosu 10y ago
      I just want to point out that this is not restricted to 'fat' people, but a great majority of people who feel a huge pressure to adhere to a physical appearance standard without the proper education of how to get there and maintain it.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Sometimes I find myself with an empty fridge and can't be bothered to go shopping, so I'll just eat less for a day. It's not hard to not do something. Just don't have too much food in your home, then you can't eat too much of it. >For some, exercise is actually counter-productive and causes more hunger. For others, exercise is a crucial part of success. You don't have to eat just because you are hungry. This is actually the one and only problem, eating impulsively, but even in general, doing anything impulsively.
  - CharlesW 10y ago
    > Just don't have too much food in your home, then you can't eat too much of it. Thank you for solving obesity!
andrewla 10y ago
> the energy expenditure must be higher than the intake I think you might be overestimating the predictive power of this statement. The reason that these fad diets and questionable research end up being so popular is that people have a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that this does not apply as a necessary condition for weight loss. I think it would be hard to argue that it isn't sufficient; assuming that "energy expenditure" and "intake" are well-defined (note that even the model of "calories" in food is not a chemical notion, as many think, it's a heuristic based on a known incorrect model of metabolism), but people see evidence all around them (once again, anecdotal, and in some cases based on incomplete evidence) that people who neither restrict input nor expand expenditure can maintain a healthy weight. People want there to be a magic bullet that will let their metabolism shift into a state where the body would simply stop storing excess calories as fat. I'm fairly convinced that we haven't yet found it, but I think it is a laudable goal. And, because losing weight has positive health and social implications, this is a place where people are desperate enough for a solution that won't involve unpleasantness that they're willing to believe unreasonable things.
- badosu 10y ago
  I agree with your reasoning, and that complements or corrects what I've written perfectly. The last paragraph is extremely sad though: that it would require a new complicated drug, procedure or technology to overcome the forces present in the average person blocking it from having agency on this issue. Maybe this problem points out to huge psychological (people that can't afford treatment or realize underlying mental problems that exarcebate the condition) or economical (a healthy lifestyle is more difficult to attain if you're constantly stressed to have minimal provisions or time) issues on society as a whole.
upvotinglurker 10y ago
For what it's worth, this article is not about "$name diets." Rather, it is about a researcher's use of questionable methods. The researcher's field happens to be psychological factors affecting eating behavior, but his questionable methods can be/are used in other disciplines (as pointed out in the article). And based on the summaries in the article, the researcher seems to be in complete agreement with your rant: his studies are not about what to eat, but how to more easily achieve the intake vs. expenditure balance (for example, by using smaller plates to make it psychologically easier to limit portion size, or giving low-calorie foods a name that makes them more psychologically attractive). So, it's hard to see what in the article this rant is responding to.
- badosu 10y ago
  I did not make myself clear (hence the irrational part of it): this rant was not a direct response to the article, instead revolving about how awful it is that we have an environment that pushes people to follow an agenda that is not suited to their best interests. And how easily it is able to.

by badosu 10y ago

CharlesW 10y ago

> Meanwhile the knowledge of what works is blatantly obvious: the energy expenditure must be higher than the intake. This is like saying about the poor, "What works is blatantly obvious: Poor people just need to increase income or reduce expenditures. Boom! Poverty solved." The secret is that this isn't the problem. The actual problem that fat people must solve is not what to do, but how to do it, both in the short- and long-term. > Having a healthy diet and exercise regimen along that is highly desirable but not strictly necessary... 1,000 calories of cupcake are 1,000 calories of chicken breast are, in theory, the same amount of energy. In practice, diet and exercise considerations are integral aspects of the actual problem that fat people must solve. Example: For some, exercise is actually counter-productive and causes more hunger. For others, exercise is a crucial part of success. Example: For some, calorie restriction can be done with no particular attention paid to the balance of carbs, proteins, and fats. For others, a low-carb diet means lower hunger/higher satiation for longer and is a must for success.

badosu 10y ago
> The secret is that this isn't the problem. The actual problem that fat people must solve is not what to do, but how to do it, both in the short- and long-term. You're right, it just gets to my nerves as this is a source of huge suffering to most people and there's an industry specialized to prey on this.
- CharlesW 10y ago
  Couldn't agree more!
  - badosu 10y ago
    I just want to point out that this is not restricted to 'fat' people, but a great majority of people who feel a huge pressure to adhere to a physical appearance standard without the proper education of how to get there and maintain it.
literallycancer 10y ago
Sometimes I find myself with an empty fridge and can't be bothered to go shopping, so I'll just eat less for a day. It's not hard to not do something. Just don't have too much food in your home, then you can't eat too much of it. >For some, exercise is actually counter-productive and causes more hunger. For others, exercise is a crucial part of success. You don't have to eat just because you are hungry. This is actually the one and only problem, eating impulsively, but even in general, doing anything impulsively.
- CharlesW 10y ago
  > Just don't have too much food in your home, then you can't eat too much of it. Thank you for solving obesity!

andrewla 10y ago

> the energy expenditure must be higher than the intake I think you might be overestimating the predictive power of this statement. The reason that these fad diets and questionable research end up being so popular is that people have a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that this does not apply as a necessary condition for weight loss. I think it would be hard to argue that it isn't sufficient; assuming that "energy expenditure" and "intake" are well-defined (note that even the model of "calories" in food is not a chemical notion, as many think, it's a heuristic based on a known incorrect model of metabolism), but people see evidence all around them (once again, anecdotal, and in some cases based on incomplete evidence) that people who neither restrict input nor expand expenditure can maintain a healthy weight. People want there to be a magic bullet that will let their metabolism shift into a state where the body would simply stop storing excess calories as fat. I'm fairly convinced that we haven't yet found it, but I think it is a laudable goal. And, because losing weight has positive health and social implications, this is a place where people are desperate enough for a solution that won't involve unpleasantness that they're willing to believe unreasonable things.

badosu 10y ago
I agree with your reasoning, and that complements or corrects what I've written perfectly. The last paragraph is extremely sad though: that it would require a new complicated drug, procedure or technology to overcome the forces present in the average person blocking it from having agency on this issue. Maybe this problem points out to huge psychological (people that can't afford treatment or realize underlying mental problems that exarcebate the condition) or economical (a healthy lifestyle is more difficult to attain if you're constantly stressed to have minimal provisions or time) issues on society as a whole.

upvotinglurker 10y ago

For what it's worth, this article is not about "$name diets." Rather, it is about a researcher's use of questionable methods. The researcher's field happens to be psychological factors affecting eating behavior, but his questionable methods can be/are used in other disciplines (as pointed out in the article). And based on the summaries in the article, the researcher seems to be in complete agreement with your rant: his studies are not about what to eat, but how to more easily achieve the intake vs. expenditure balance (for example, by using smaller plates to make it psychologically easier to limit portion size, or giving low-calorie foods a name that makes them more psychologically attractive). So, it's hard to see what in the article this rant is responding to.

badosu 10y ago
I did not make myself clear (hence the irrational part of it): this rant was not a direct response to the article, instead revolving about how awful it is that we have an environment that pushes people to follow an agenda that is not suited to their best interests. And how easily it is able to.