4 ms·

> Energy balance is a simple physics equation. Yes there are adaptations as I noted in my previous post, but they don't change this basic fact, merely how conve

> Energy balance is a simple physics equation. Yes there are adaptations as I noted in my previous post, but they don't change this basic fact, merely how conveniently it's achieved. Humans have brains. One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. So yeah, you can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but the energy equation is inputs minus outputs. If you reduce inputs but also reduce outputs, then you haven't changed the energy balance. > Dismissing personal responsibility in your life is not a valid option. Look, I agree. I initially responded to somebody talking about abs. Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You disagree, but the literature on this topic is extensive. In fact, the fact that people cannot follow diets is just about the only reliable finding that nutrition research has produced. You may look at a .5 heritability for something and think that leaves a whole lot of room for personal responsibility, so let me add some context. Height has a heritability of about .8. No sane person, anywhere, believes that a person has any control over their height. It is entirely your genetics and, absent severe malnutrition, random shit that happens in your life (possibly starting inside the womb). A .5 heritability for conscientiousness means that, to start, 50% of your work ethic and sense of personal responsibility (rough common language approximations of the conscientiousness trait) are completely and utterly out of your control. Then, out of the other 50%, free will is one of many possible other things which exert influence. Now, you may think, oh, well all 50% of that is up to the individual. But I assure you that it almost certainly is not. I could probably come up with dozens of things that would have an influence, but here are just a few that come to mind first: your income level, whether or not you have a chronic illness, how stressful your job is, how stressful your marriage is, whether or not you have family members who are ill, whether or not you have dependent children. All of those things go into non-shared environment and many of them are not in your control. But you better believe they influence your ability to take personal responsibility.

loco5niner 8y ago
> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense. Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense. The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense. It makes tons of sense in an evolutionary environment where your body is trying to keep you from starving. Less motivation means you save calories for things which are absolutely necessary.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Note that I followed the section you quoted with this: >Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense. You completely ignored that part. Please explain how my body could be worried about starving if my hunger is satiated. Your answer also ignores this part: > The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems. How is reducing our calorie intake from WAY to much to just right going to make my brain start worrying about starving? Also, if my brain is worried about starving, it should be MORE motivated to gather resources for, if nothing else, more food!
- yellowapple 8y ago
  "You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense." That makes perfect sense to me. Reduced calorie input = reduced energy intake = reduced energy surplus = more motivation to conserve energy = less motivation to expend energy. A lot of this might be psychological, but it might also be biological (for the same reason why fasting tends to encourage the body to store nutrients as body fat in anticipation of future fasting).
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Well, sure, when you ignore the part of my comment that said "Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation". The key issue is we're talking about going from eating TOO MUCH to eating ENOUGH.
loco5niner 8y ago
> from toasterlovin >Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You [naasking] disagree Nope. naasking did not disagree. Here is what they said: > from naasking > Dieting also has poor long-term success because people see it as a temporary measure, and not as a lifestyle change as they should, ie. this is how I should be eating from now on. It's no wonder they revert back to previous body composition with that mindset.
naasking 8y ago
> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. No, that's a last resort resulting from extreme caloric deficits over prolonged periods. In fact, fasting actually increases perceived energy levels over the first several weeks. Which makes perfect sense: if your body thinks you're having trouble finding food, it's adaptive to be alert and ready so you don't miss any eating possibilities. Over prolonged periods of caloric deficit, your body down regulates hormones which lowers various metabolic functions so you use less energy in various ways (lower body temp, reduction in NEAT), but this happens over the course of months, and even this energy output reduction is easily staved off by deficit cycling, mild exercise and/or maintaining only a mild deficit rather than a steep one. > Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You disagree, but the literature on this topic is extensive. In fact, the fact that people cannot follow diets is just about the only reliable finding that nutrition research has produced. That's not really what I said: 1. I said summarizing this research as "diets are ineffective" is the wrong conclusion. Diets are very effective when they're not presented as temporary interventions, which is how people often view them. 2. The research doesn't show that people can't follow diets, but that they won't for "reasons", among which are addiction to certain foods, emotional eating, and just general ignorance about nutrition. This is partly an educational failing, and partly because they simply have no compelling reason to care more than the immediate pleasure they get from indulging. > Height has a heritability of about .8. No sane person, anywhere, believes that a person has any control over their height. It is entirely your genetics and, absent severe malnutrition [...] Well you just said it there: nutritional choices by you or your parents have a considerable influence on your height. I also think you're overstating it by saying only severe malnutrition can impact your ultimate height. > All of those things go into non-shared environment and many of them are not in your control. But you better believe they influence your ability to take personal responsibility. "Influence" does not entail "determine". You know what else would have a negative influence on a person's sense of control of their life? Telling them most of their body composition, nutritional failings and overall health is out of their control. This too has been extensively studied. In fact, better well being through better nutrition and exercise is consistently shown to be one of the best changes a person can make in their life, giving them back a sense of control so they can tackle their other problems. Pushing your narrative isn't doing anyone any favours.

loco5niner 8y ago

> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense. Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense. The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems.

toasterlovin 8y ago
> You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense. It makes tons of sense in an evolutionary environment where your body is trying to keep you from starving. Less motivation means you save calories for things which are absolutely necessary.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Note that I followed the section you quoted with this: >Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense. You completely ignored that part. Please explain how my body could be worried about starving if my hunger is satiated. Your answer also ignores this part: > The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems. How is reducing our calorie intake from WAY to much to just right going to make my brain start worrying about starving? Also, if my brain is worried about starving, it should be MORE motivated to gather resources for, if nothing else, more food!
yellowapple 8y ago
"You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense." That makes perfect sense to me. Reduced calorie input = reduced energy intake = reduced energy surplus = more motivation to conserve energy = less motivation to expend energy. A lot of this might be psychological, but it might also be biological (for the same reason why fasting tends to encourage the body to store nutrients as body fat in anticipation of future fasting).
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Well, sure, when you ignore the part of my comment that said "Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation". The key issue is we're talking about going from eating TOO MUCH to eating ENOUGH.

loco5niner 8y ago

> from toasterlovin >Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You [naasking] disagree Nope. naasking did not disagree. Here is what they said: > from naasking > Dieting also has poor long-term success because people see it as a temporary measure, and not as a lifestyle change as they should, ie. this is how I should be eating from now on. It's no wonder they revert back to previous body composition with that mindset.

naasking 8y ago

> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. No, that's a last resort resulting from extreme caloric deficits over prolonged periods. In fact, fasting actually increases perceived energy levels over the first several weeks. Which makes perfect sense: if your body thinks you're having trouble finding food, it's adaptive to be alert and ready so you don't miss any eating possibilities. Over prolonged periods of caloric deficit, your body down regulates hormones which lowers various metabolic functions so you use less energy in various ways (lower body temp, reduction in NEAT), but this happens over the course of months, and even this energy output reduction is easily staved off by deficit cycling, mild exercise and/or maintaining only a mild deficit rather than a steep one. > Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You disagree, but the literature on this topic is extensive. In fact, the fact that people cannot follow diets is just about the only reliable finding that nutrition research has produced. That's not really what I said: 1. I said summarizing this research as "diets are ineffective" is the wrong conclusion. Diets are very effective when they're not presented as temporary interventions, which is how people often view them. 2. The research doesn't show that people can't follow diets, but that they won't for "reasons", among which are addiction to certain foods, emotional eating, and just general ignorance about nutrition. This is partly an educational failing, and partly because they simply have no compelling reason to care more than the immediate pleasure they get from indulging. > Height has a heritability of about .8. No sane person, anywhere, believes that a person has any control over their height. It is entirely your genetics and, absent severe malnutrition [...] Well you just said it there: nutritional choices by you or your parents have a considerable influence on your height. I also think you're overstating it by saying only severe malnutrition can impact your ultimate height. > All of those things go into non-shared environment and many of them are not in your control. But you better believe they influence your ability to take personal responsibility. "Influence" does not entail "determine". You know what else would have a negative influence on a person's sense of control of their life? Telling them most of their body composition, nutritional failings and overall health is out of their control. This too has been extensively studied. In fact, better well being through better nutrition and exercise is consistently shown to be one of the best changes a person can make in their life, giving them back a sense of control so they can tackle their other problems. Pushing your narrative isn't doing anyone any favours.