Asymmetrical Information

Is your critic aware that you once, by your account, actually lost a lot of weight?

Is your critic aware that you once, by your account, actually lost a lot of weight?

I once read a book which said that the difference between quitting smoking or drinking and losing weight is that you CAN quit smoking. I mean, you can just stop, cold turkey, and never pick up another cigaraette or drink.

But you HAVE TO eat -- three times per day, every day, forever. You can't just stop doing it. This makes losing weight much harder than quitting smoking.

I don't think this excuses people who need to lose weight, me among them, but it is true, and it is interesting.

As you noted, it's very easy to grab a handful of M&M or other snack foods and add calories without really thinking of it. Smoking a cigarette, in contrast, is a more deliberative act, especially now with so many restrictions on smoking in public places.

When one is well-enough known to have acquired lots of Google-love, one OUGHT to egosurf from time to time.

How is it that a company SHOULD egosurf, but a lot of private people - including ones like you and me - who've made their reputations online - might get criticized for it? Not fair.

Done right it's not an I-love-me thing, it's a pulse-taking-and-message-control thing (with the understanding that the dynamics are driven by the audience).

As for the weight issue - there are few things that get on my nerves faster than out-of-shape people who criticize not-out-of-shape people for being not-out-of-shape.

At least, that's how it comes across at first glance, though it's covered up with all sorts of justifications about how the latter group just AUTOMATICALLY MUST be passing judgement on the former group.

Meanwhile, I don't like being yanked into someone's personal pity party. I am quite good enough at throwing my own when the circumstances call for it, thanks.

In terms of 'quitting cold turkey' it can help to give up certain foods. For example, I don't buy any food where the grams of fat = more than 1/30th of the calories.

They've recently developed some drugs like naltrexone which are good for preventing addictive behaviors because they prevent your brain from 'rewarding' you for them. Coupled with SSRIs, they make a good replacement for the horrid conventional treatments like methadone for heroin.

From God's Debris, by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert)

"When you see an overweight person, what do you think of his willpower?" [asked the old man.]
"I think he doesn’t have much," I said.
"Why do you think that?"
"How hard is it to skip that third bowl of ice cream? I’m in good shape because I exercise and eat right. It’s not easy, but I have the willpower. Some people don’t."
"If you were starving, could you resist eating?"
"I doubt it. Not for long, anyway."
"But if your belly were full you could resist easily, I assume."
"Sure."
"It sounds as if hunger determines your actions, not so-called willpower."
"No, you picked two extremes: starving and full," I said. "Most of the time I’m in the middle. I can eat a little or eat a lot, but it’s up to me."
"Have you ever been very hungry—not starving, just very hungry—and found yourself eating until it hurt?"
"Yes, but on average I don’t eat too much. Sometimes I’m busy and I forget to eat for half a day. It all averages out."
"I don’t see how willpower enters into your life," he said. "In one case you overeat and in the other case you simply forget to eat. I see no willpower at all."
"I don’t overeat every time I eat. Most of the time I have average hunger and I eat average amounts. I’d like to eat more, but I don’t. That’s willpower."
"And according to you, overweight people have less of this thing you call willpower?" he asked.
"Obviously. Otherwise they’d eat less."
"Isn’t it possible that overweight people have the same amount of willpower as you but much greater hunger?"
"I think people have to take responsibility for their own bodies," I replied.
"Take responsibility? It sounds as if you’re trying to replace the word willpower with two new words in the hope that I will think it’s a new thought."
I laughed. He nailed me.
"Okay, just give it to me," I said, knowing there was a more profound thought behind this line of questioning.
"We like to believe that other people have the same level of urges as we do, despite all evidence to the contrary. We convince ourselves that people differ only in their degree of morality or willpower, or a combination of the two. But urges are real, and they differ wildly for every individual. Morality and willpower are illusions. For any human being, the highest urge always wins and willpower never enters into it. Willpower is a delusion."

The entire book (free download) is a series of dialogs like this.

But you HAVE TO eat -- three times per day, every day, forever.

Eating three times a day is habit, not biology. You can easily adapt to eating twice a day, or even once. Or six, as bodybuilders are wont to do.

Jane wrote:
I get sick if I overeat, and if I've gained a few pounds, a family dinner binge results in several days of declining appetite until I've got some calorie balance back. Obviously, this doesn't happen to everyone.

Nor does it happen to the same person at different stages of existence. You may find it more difficult to keep weight off in 20 years than it is now. Or maybe nanobots will do it for you...

Just an observation. People in America are much fatter than people with the same genetic background in the rest of the world, and they are also much fatter than thetheir grandparents were sixty years ago when they were the same age.
Just an observation. Conclusions are your own risk.

wkwillis hits the nail on the head. Do different people have to face different levels of temptation? Sure. (Call it what you will, that's what we're talking about -- temptation). But so what? Suck it up, fat boy.

Different people may have to demonstrate different amounts of "willpower" to remain healthy. But none of the "willpower" that is being demanded is beyond the reach of a normal human being. Whining because it's easier for other people than it is for you is a cop out.

Man, I was proud of not having had a cigarette in eight days. Dang.

I need a smoke.

Different people may have to demonstrate different amounts of "willpower" to remain healthy.

Dieting is more than just willpower. It's also about knowledge. You have some folks who try to diet by eating rice cakes, which only makes their hunger worse. Trans fats have been linked to all kinds of metabolic problems. If you don't know how to diet in a healthful fashion, or if you don't have time to exercise, those things impact your success as much as willpower.

The most interesting thing about this post was that the woman who felt aggrieved totally mis-read Jane's statement, proving (as if we needed more proof) that most people see only what they want to see.

As for needing to eat every day...not really. I've fasted for an entire month (relying on strained juice and soup), and after the first couple days you aren't hungry at all. Your stomach just comes to the conclusion it's not getting what it wants and gives up sending the hunger signals. I had plenty of energy the entire month, and continued working and playing tennis as I always had. Just another point on the graph.

(And, to be responsible, there are known good ways to do these long fasts and known bad ways, so research is warranted. End of disclaimer.)

Careful Megan, soon people will be calling you a crack whore because of how many people have Googled you.

Ellipsis has a point. My weight held at 120 pounds (positively scrawny) for a dozen years. I ate a lot, but burned it all up, and eating one bite more made me sick. Then there was some sort of metabolic shift at age 31, and suddenly I was gaining 2 pounds a month. I had to exercise and learn to stop eating before I was absolutely full - and maybe I haven't been so successful at that, since I'm now 175 pounds, which is a bit heavy for 5'9", and I certainly can't blame it on big bones, big muscles, or fat genes...

Seth Roberts (the Shangri-La diet) has some interesting ideas on the complicated calculations our brains engage in to decide how much to eat. His book (in the appendix, which I think is by far the most interesting part) goes through some research studies, although there hasn't been as much research on this as there should be. In one study, people were allowed to have as much as they wanted of a sweet liquid with nutrition in it (probably similar to the fast Zak mentioned). They could have as much as they wanted, but the liquid had little taste, and they simply didn't want very much. They lost weight without yearning for food all the time. Roberts thinks that strong tastes can be a sort of trigger that tell the brain its time to load up on food. [Note: This is far from a complete description of his ideas and their basis.]

After all, before refrigeration and abundant food at all times of the year, it made sense to load up during the summer and fall, when there was a wide variety of good-tasting food. But in the winter, when one ate whatever one had left whether it tasted very good or not, excess appetite was counter-productive, as was adding to one's fat stores. It was time to draw down, not stock up. Those most likely to survive the winter were those whose brains knew when to shut off the appetite and when to turn it back on again.

In other words, pure willpower alone may be the hard, inefficient way to lose weight, because you're fighting your own brain every step of the way. There may be aspects of Jane's diet that she's not aware of that convince her brain not to crank up her appetite. If we could find those, people wouldn't have to waste huge amounts of time and effort fighting themselves over weight loss.

Its about exercise, not eating. If everyone were to start walking a couple of miles a day we could stop having this conversation.

I once got into a debate on Political Animal over this very issue. I was called heartless and diabolical for suggesting that most people could control their weight through a combination of proper diet and exercise. I also had many commenters make the suggestion that the poor are more obese because they don't have much money to spend on food (and, no, I am not making that up).

". I was called heartless and diabolical for suggesting that most people could control their weight through a combination of proper diet and exercise."

It's probably at least remotely possible for all - in other words, the cost would be finite rather than infinite - but nevertheless the cost of maintaing a low weight seems to vary dramatically from one person to the next, or even for the same person over time.

What I find odd about the debate is that some people seem to think that it's morally superior to ignore the cost structure (Quoting DRB - "But so what? Suck it up, fat boy."). If we can make something more efficient by lowering the cost, shouldn't we look into it?

One possibility that I think we should consider is that our food is less nutritious than it once was, which surely throws things off. Even if we eat those nice-looking but tasteless 'fresh' fruits and veggies from Walmart, they may not have the vitamins and minerals that they once had. Not only are we getting a lot of trans-fat in our diets now, we're also getting less omega 3 and CLA because our milk and meat don't come from animals that have been allowed to graze as much. And there are probably many other changes that have been made for convenience and because they didn't seem to matter, but they perhaps add up.

"Whining because it's easier for other people than it is for you is a cop out."

Uh, don't you mean that not doing it because it's easier for other people than it is for you is a cop out?

Honestly, it sounds like a legitimate reason for whining, at least to the extent that there's ever such a thing. But I'm sure you never whine about anything, ever, you never pity yourself, you never think your problems are more important than other people's problems, not you. You suck it up, always. Bravo.

Ann: Sure, you could be right. So go find the studies that compare the nutrional value of food resulting from the various kinds of grazing and growing methods.

Oh, wait, you probably already did that and it proved you wrong. Nevermind.

Ann, if you do the research I expect that you'll find that the nutritional content of our diets has improved (especially in our meats and produce). However, in some (many?) instances people probably get more nutrition through eating greater quantities of not so nutricious foods, despite the abundance of nutricious alternatives.

I just got back from a military base in the desert. The heat lowered my metabolism, and I rarely got hungry. Also, I wans't a fan of the greasy, overcooked food. I've put on a tiny bit of weight (starting to get noticable) since getting back for two reasons (and the first is really a subset of the second). One, the availability of good tasting food. And two, all the entertaining distractions (beer) and general distractions (buying a house, cell phone, getting my national wireless working...) that I choose instead of exercising.

The most important thing is the distractions. Silly stuff I do instead of exercise. The will power to excerise is far more important than restraint in diet. Not only does it burn calories, it will change your metabolism and you will naturally choose healthier foods. Don't get distracted. Go to the gym first.

And a second observation is that there is a very noticable difference "fit" fat people and "fat" fat people. Mostly in their posture and the way they handle themselves. "Fat" fat people's personallity defects and laziness shows through not just their weight, but more so by their manurisms, energy level, etc. There are a few "fit" fat people, they can even be attractive (they smile, have better posture, healthier skin, and know how to dress correctly).

Being fat doesn't make you a bad person, but being a bad (deficient) person will probably make you fat. Unfortunately, I think there is a whole lot of the later. That's why there's a stereo-type.

"but more so by their manurisms"

There has just GOT to be a joke somewhere in the term "manurisms." I'm picturing something along the lines of behaviors which equate somehow to bovine fecal matter, but the words just won't, er, come out right.

Person -

What I had in mind was this article on "plummeting mineral levels" in foods over the last 60 years-

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=65593

and this, on how grazing affects nutritional content of milk -

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=62317

In many ways, people's diets have probably improved because they can get fresh foods at all times of the year, and plenty of it. But having to eat more food to get the same amount of nutrition would seem to encourage weight gain. And switching from a variety of fats in our diet, some of them healthy, to a huge reliance on one specific, not very healthy type of omega 6, is another change that should be considered. And there are other changes, such as perhaps fewer whole grains, more corn syrup, clearly more trans fat, etc.

Maybe excesssive processing of everything has a downside. I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, just thinking that more research wouldn't hurt, to see if there are some systematic changes that have made things worse.

Ultimately, the unlucky ones will have to 'suck it up' and exercise if they want to get healthy. But I don't understand the nasty, smug attitude some people take on this subject.

As BP Beckley said about people that have a harder time losing weight: "Honestly, it sounds like a legitimate reason for whining, at least to the extent that there's ever such a thing."

rafinlay -

Maybe the research I'm looking for can start with those 'manurisms', which might be related to how much grazing the cows do.

People in America are much fatter than people with the same genetic background in the rest of the world, and they are also much fatter than thetheir grandparents were sixty years ago when they were the same age.

Americans on average are wealthier, and food is much less expensive and more available in the United States than in most countries in the rest of the world, and cheaper and more available than it was sixty years ago.

And as can be seen in the figures for, say, Mexico, where they're fatter now than they were sixty years ago, with obesity an increasing problem. As are people everywhere else where food is both cheaper and more available, and the people on average are wealthier. Like France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even India, Brazil, Chile . . . .

In fact, it's all exactly what you'd expect from pure economic theory -- except that wealthy Americans are not as fat as would be expected.

What I had in mind was this article on "plummeting mineral levels" in foods over the last 60 years-

I don't have any facts to back this up, just the intuition from years in the lab, but -- I'd guess those differences between experiments performed 51 years apart are driven mostly by methodology changes. That David Thomas doesn't stress the unreliability of his calculation is a huge red flag in its own right.

rafinlay,

I have decided to use the term "manurism" whenever I want to use the term "bullshit". Maybe, in 10 years or so, the word will appear in a dictionary.:~)

JSinger -

It sounds like you know much more than I do on this. That study just caught my eye, perhaps because the claim was surprising. I've read more extensively on Omega 3s and CLAs, to decide whether or not to take supplements. But I'm not claiming to be an expert and am not saying that there was some mythical past time when our diets were perfect.

Probably much of the change in obesity is simply that food is cheaper and we're richer, as Warmongering said, plus we don't have to exercise as much as we once did (we get to ride more). But I've become more concerned about what may be missing from my diet, even if I eat my fruits and vegetables, and it seems possible that systematic changes in diets may have affected obesity.

The ultimate answer to weight loss is still to eat more carefully and exercise more, but that doesn't mean that everyone gets the same trade-off, or that we have to be cruel to those that have a harder time.

Yancey Ward

When you write the wikipedia entry, just make sure you footnote aaron as the source, even if he didn't mean it that way....

In other words, pure willpower alone may be the hard, inefficient way to lose weight, because you're fighting your own brain every step of the way. There may be aspects of Jane's diet that she's not aware of that convince her brain not to crank up her appetite. If we could find those, people wouldn't have to waste huge amounts of time and effort fighting themselves over weight loss.

This is my stance as well. I'll be surprised if we don't make any major breakthroughs in dealing with obesity in the next three decades.

In the meantime, yeah, excessive ragging on fatties gets on my nerves too. As Ann said, cost structure matters.

It sounds like you know much more than I do on this.

Like I said, I don't know anything specifically about this. What I do know, from painful experience, is that when you do a study in an obviously sketchy way and you get startlingly dramatic results, they're most likely artifacts.

Comments are Closed.