3 ms·

This advice has always come off as paternalistic to me, like the emphasis is on people just not being able to control themselves or something. The first part i

This advice has always come off as paternalistic to me, like the emphasis is on people just not being able to control themselves or something. The first part is obvious. The second part smuggles in a fundamentally incorrect take on the "eating too much"/obesity problem, namely that it has something to do with willpower: including "not too much" in the advice implies that we need to be told not to eat too much, but that a diet that naturally induces overeating is otherwise OK. The third part is arbitrary and unfounded, and if you ignore it you can ignore the second part as well: get some good fatty meat on your plate and you can safely eat to satiety.

ericyd 2y ago
I don't think of the second part being about self control and obesity, to me it's just a reinforcement of the idea that each person has different caloric requirements and you should respect your own needs. Of course it's vague so open to interpretation. The third part feels as arbitrary and unfounded as any other dietary advice I read, so I'm inclined to take the simplest advice available.
pton_xd 2y ago
> The first part is obvious. Is it, though? It seems like many struggle with the first part. Does snacking on a vending machine Duchess Honey Bun or a sleeve of Oreos qualify as "eat food?" How about popping open a cup of instant ramen or microwaving some frozen taquitos? I'd call all of that eating junk, but I think that's the root of the issue.
- gushogg-blake 2y ago
  No I guess there must be some people for whom it isn't obvious. I was kind of assuming the intended audience for the advice was people who are interested enough in diet to look at a book on nutrition, for example, not people who just eat junk without thinking about it. But yes for those people I do think the "eat food" thing should be emphasised and laid out in more detail, maybe. Hard for me to have an opinion there as I just can't put myself in the shoes of someone who eats that kind of stuff.

ericyd 2y ago

I don't think of the second part being about self control and obesity, to me it's just a reinforcement of the idea that each person has different caloric requirements and you should respect your own needs. Of course it's vague so open to interpretation. The third part feels as arbitrary and unfounded as any other dietary advice I read, so I'm inclined to take the simplest advice available.

pton_xd 2y ago

> The first part is obvious. Is it, though? It seems like many struggle with the first part. Does snacking on a vending machine Duchess Honey Bun or a sleeve of Oreos qualify as "eat food?" How about popping open a cup of instant ramen or microwaving some frozen taquitos? I'd call all of that eating junk, but I think that's the root of the issue.

gushogg-blake 2y ago
No I guess there must be some people for whom it isn't obvious. I was kind of assuming the intended audience for the advice was people who are interested enough in diet to look at a book on nutrition, for example, not people who just eat junk without thinking about it. But yes for those people I do think the "eat food" thing should be emphasised and laid out in more detail, maybe. Hard for me to have an opinion there as I just can't put myself in the shoes of someone who eats that kind of stuff.