3 ms·

" there is a not a single study in the history of science which has been able to demonstrate eating at a caloric deficit and gaining weight." That's absolutely

by audunw 12y ago

" there is a not a single study in the history of science which has been able to demonstrate eating at a caloric deficit and gaining weight." That's absolutely right. "takes what is a relatively simple issue and makes it needlessly complex." Human metabolism and psychology is complex. Basically, it's the most complex system that we know of. You can't just throw out psychology and metabolism, and say it doesn't matter, because as long as you eat less calories than you consume you're alright. People have know "calories in vs. calories out" for decades. People are still getting fatter. Maybe if you shout it a bit louder, it will start working? Sorry about the sarcasm, but that's how I feel about the issue. I feel it's a bit like telling a depressed person to just "stop it". Snap out of it! Why are you thinking these bad thoughts? It's bad for you! Stop it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw You do touch on this though "(how to ensure someone sticks with the program)", but then seem to gloss over it. You start out saying it's "not complex". If it's not complicated, why is it not solved yet? What you eat, is certainly not everything, but sugar drives behaviour very strongly. More so than other nutrients is my impression. It affects motivation which again affects how well you stick with a program. It's not everything, but it's part of the puzzle. Other things that affect compliance could be, mental health, friends, advertisement, culture, economical situation.. How is this not complicated?

wdewind 12y ago
I think we totally agree. My entire point is that this is enormously complicated, but mostly in the psychology department, and not so much in the eating department. Eating a caloric defect works for everyone, so the difficult part is figuring out how to get them to do that, which seems to be a psychological issue entirely. Again, we agree that it is enormously complex, I am lamenting the fact that we don't put more resources into the psychological aspect of it.
- bdegman 12y ago
  Of course eating at a calorie deficit will work for everyone if your only goal is 'lose weight'. If you actually want to be healthy it's more complicated than that.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    Maybe, but there is a massive amount of low hanging fruit in terms of making people healthy by simply making them less fat.
- taeric 12y ago
  Have you considered that what you eat might make a difference to your psychology?
  - wdewind 12y ago
    Of course, what I'd like is more studying of that and less studying of whether or not different macronutrient compositions cause you to lose more weight through something other than calorie deficit.
    - taeric 12y ago
      I think the point is that the macronutrient compositions is the driver in how food affects your behavior. That is, what you are asking for is a study that would show why large populations of people can't just "eat less." Why are they stuck in a rut of eating more than they need? Worse, why are many of them not even happy about it, but still can't get out? This hypothesis is basically that that behavior is fueled by a feedback cycle that has, in large part, the actual foods that people eat caught in it somewhere. Now, I think I see what you are getting at. Could you fix this at other parts of the feedback cycle? Perhaps. And I certainly agree that should get research, too. I just don't think this research is unrelated.
      - wdewind 12y ago
        > I think the point is that the macronutrient compositions is the driver in how food affects your behavior. That is absolutely not the point of Taubes's research. Reread the article.
        taeric 12y ago
        Sorry, my point is more that the study would be basically the same anyway. That is, if this singles out some food as more likely to cause overeating/fat gain, that will still be an incomplete explanation. Which is where the psychology aspect would step up. Right?

by audunw 12y ago

wdewind 12y ago

I think we totally agree. My entire point is that this is enormously complicated, but mostly in the psychology department, and not so much in the eating department. Eating a caloric defect works for everyone, so the difficult part is figuring out how to get them to do that, which seems to be a psychological issue entirely. Again, we agree that it is enormously complex, I am lamenting the fact that we don't put more resources into the psychological aspect of it.

bdegman 12y ago
Of course eating at a calorie deficit will work for everyone if your only goal is 'lose weight'. If you actually want to be healthy it's more complicated than that.
- wdewind 12y ago
  Maybe, but there is a massive amount of low hanging fruit in terms of making people healthy by simply making them less fat.
taeric 12y ago
Have you considered that what you eat might make a difference to your psychology?
- wdewind 12y ago
  Of course, what I'd like is more studying of that and less studying of whether or not different macronutrient compositions cause you to lose more weight through something other than calorie deficit.
  - taeric 12y ago
    I think the point is that the macronutrient compositions is the driver in how food affects your behavior. That is, what you are asking for is a study that would show why large populations of people can't just "eat less." Why are they stuck in a rut of eating more than they need? Worse, why are many of them not even happy about it, but still can't get out? This hypothesis is basically that that behavior is fueled by a feedback cycle that has, in large part, the actual foods that people eat caught in it somewhere. Now, I think I see what you are getting at. Could you fix this at other parts of the feedback cycle? Perhaps. And I certainly agree that should get research, too. I just don't think this research is unrelated.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > I think the point is that the macronutrient compositions is the driver in how food affects your behavior. That is absolutely not the point of Taubes's research. Reread the article.
      - taeric 12y ago
        Sorry, my point is more that the study would be basically the same anyway. That is, if this singles out some food as more likely to cause overeating/fat gain, that will still be an incomplete explanation. Which is where the psychology aspect would step up. Right?