[dahart]

Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and only sometimes helpful.

> “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current account. Weight gain is then simply a matter of depositing more than you withdraw. But that ignores the role of hormones and appetite; differences in the way different foods are metabolised and the way the body reacts to prolonged deprivation by hoarding fat and slowing down. No wonder diets rarely work

Speaking of misleading stories, diets do work. People just don't stick to them because they're super difficult. We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food, and it can be near impossible socially to stick to a diet. It's not because something is wrong with the phrase "calories in, calories out". Which isn't even a metaphor, by the way, so why is this diatribe here? This specious argument is saying we should ignore the primary factor and instead worry about the margins. Person to person variance in caloric digestion is in the low percentages for almost everyone. Nearly everyone gets the same 230 calories from McDonalds French fries. Sure, someone might absorb a little more and get 245 and someone else might absorb a little less and get 215, but skipping them is an order of magnitude more effective for everyone.

[johngalt]

Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement.

The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes. Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other systems are changed.

[Analemma_]

I like to say that "calories in/out is true" in the same way that "abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control" is true: it's an obviously true statement that, in practice, is useless at best and dangerously counterproductive at worst.

[panarky]

The idea that the only way to lose weight is to reduce calorie intake to below calorie burn is not true in any practical sense.

And it's not just a matter of willpower.

If you add up the calories in the food you eat, then subtract the calories you burn through exercise, respiration, beating heart, etc., you cannot compute weight gain or loss.

That's because the body doesn't use 100% of calories in food. Some calories are never absorbed and are excreted as waste. And if you eat a big meal and then you don't exercise immediately to offset it, the excess calories are not automatically converted to fat.

And different bodies have different metabolisms, which is nearly impossible to quantify in any practical way. In fact, cutting back on calorie intake can actually cause some bodies to add fat.

So the whole idea of applying a simplistic equation to a complex and dynamic process like this probably does more harm than good.

[moron4hire]

The "calories in/out" line also ignores that the "calories out" part varies extremely. For example, my mother has two bum knees from a lifetime of sports activity that now prevent her from engaging in most strenuous activity, and an under-active thyroid. She's also post-menopausal, so her overall metabolism is super low. She literally cannot lose weight on anything more than 1500 calories per day.

"It's just a matter of willpower"--as one of my sibling commentors so thickly puts it--is theoretically true, it's just that a lot more willpower is required out of some people than others.

[dahart]

I agree, reducing it to "willpower" is roughly the same thing as reducing it to "calories in, calories out". Neither one actually helps you achieve it. And saying it's only "willpower" and nothing more is possibly more misleading, and more shaming than the caloric equation.

I found out personally that focusing on willpower doesn't work very well, thinking that way makes it easier to fail mentally. You're trying to focus everything you have on not eating food, and judging your strength by whether you succeed. It's like the psych test of trying not to think of a polar bear. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/unwanted-thoughts.aspx) Trying not to think about something is harder than thinking about something, and doubly harder than the habits we don't think about. Focusing on willpower is setting up such a monumental task that almost nobody can achieve, and the very few people that do have mentally trained for it.

It does take me the right mental frame of mind to stick to a reduced calorie diet, but I don't consider it willpower, it's more of a way of thinking and arranging my life so that I don't need willpower. It's almost opposite of willpower. I think about what I should do and how I should feel, instead of what I shouldn't, and I form new habits so that I don't have to think about it all the time or use the power of my will to overcome my tendencies.

I'm not sure but I feel like women generally have it harder when it comes to calorie reduction. My wife has to eat under 1500 to lose weight as well, and she's active and doesn't have bum knees or thyroid problems. Either way, that stinks for you mom. Does she regret her previous sport life at all now, or does she have fond memories?

[dahart]

The above comment seems to be rubbing some people the wrong way. I'm honestly stumped as to which parts are disagreeable and I'd listen and appreciate any further feedback, especially if I was accidentally offensive. My one any only goal was to contribute positively to the discussion.

[NikolaeVarius]

Its one thing to tell someone to "drive less" when they have to go to work and don't have the capital/opportunity to move closer or change jobs.

Eating less is entirely a personal willpower issue.

[Robotbeat]

Everything in life is a willpower issue. If we could just increase willpower /exactly/ when it's needed, we could solve virtually every problem not limited by fundamental physics.

The problem is if we could just increase will power for everyone, we'd cause more problems than we'd solve. Too much "will power" means literally insane people. You'll have people exercising until they die of exhaustion/stroke/etc. You'll generate anorexics. You have psychopaths since willpower overwhelms every other consideration. People pursuing self-destructive dead ends all over the place because they no longer listen to their bodies, their peers, or just plain common sense to STOP.

We cannot just increase will power. The problem is with the other side: the body thinks it's starving, so is triggering extremely loud survival instincts that overwhelm will power. We don't want to make will power so great that it always overcomes survival instincts (like the need for sleep, pain in a tooth or a sliver, etc... all these are things we want people to still respond to so they don't kill themselves), we want to tamp down this false survival instinct of hunger to that of a normal person.

[ksk]

>We don't want to make will power so great that it always overcomes survival instincts (like the need for sleep, pain in a tooth or a sliver, etc... all these are things we want people to still respond to so they don't kill themselves), we want to tamp down this false survival instinct of hunger to that of a normal person.

I don't understand your argument. How does the OP just talking about increasing willpower, equate to advocating for people to ignore their survival instincts? Or do you consider any act of increasing willpower something that will eventually lead to someone ignoring their own life?

But ignoring all that, people want practical weight-loss programs that work in the real world, not just on paper. Personally, I don't see the point in arguing about methodology when one can simply 'practice what they preach' and show that it works. People have been losing excess fat in various ways without killing themselves, so it seems like there are multiple solutions to this problem.

[Robotbeat]

I consider hunger a survival instinct. People with obesity, especially those who have actively tried to lose weight but failed, have a stronger hunger drive than normals as their body fights back against caloric restriction attempts.

If you just increased willpower to overcome this much stronger hunger drive, you'll have increased will power beyond any kind of equilibrium with the other (weaker) survival instincts, thus increasing the probability of some unintended problem.

The solution isn't to just increase willpower, as will power isn't lacking and increasing it more could cause problems. The solution is to address the real issue: the body's exaggerated response (i.e. releasing hormones which cause the sensation of hunger even when the individual is overweight) to fighting caloric restriction.

[NikolaeVarius]

I could literally make the exact same argument about getting exercise.

Getting exercise sucks, it makes you exhausted, it hurts because you're literally harming your body in the short term so that it heals stronger, and it requires will power to go out and do every day and do it. Your body is doing all it can to prevent unnecessary expenditure of energy.

Is the solution to this just to make some crazy ass pill that solves all these issues? Or is it to just deal with it and exercise?

[ksk]

Are you advocating that people are victims of their baser drives?

[moron4hire]

There's also a lot of evidence that whatever "will-power" is, it requires a rested, well-fed mind. Dieting fundamentally decreases your ability to have "will-power". So perhaps what we call "will-power" is only a correlative trait--not a causative one--for people who lose weight. People lucky enought to have bodies that can easily switch to consuming fat instead of storing fat will probably find themselves with a lot more energy throughout the day to be able to think clearly, exercise, and make good eating decisions, but then call their good fortune "will-power" as a result.

[nabla9]

Diet discussion circles around an issue that can't be said aloud: People have varying different amounts of self-control and self-control varies situationally. Fat itself is hormonally active tissue that can affect self-control.

Most people are able to lose their weight fast once they get motivated and are in a place where they can form a good habit. Habit forming requires so staying power and ability to live in some amount of discomfort. When people difficulties in life, or become depressed, food is good excellent way improve mood temporarily. Food works as instant antidepressant for mild depression. It's long term effects for mental health are usually negative.

Many people (me included) feel few days of extreme hopelessness and loss of meaning in life if they fast. If person cant accept periods of mental discomfort, but treats them as emergencies that need to be solved and not endured, there is no way he/she can get anything done that requires more than average effort.

If we would treat self-control as major issue in health and life even for normal mentally healthy people, we could tackle the issue directly without negative connotations and shame.

[dahart]

I agree so much, nicely said. I even think it's more difficult than just self control, which I alluded to a little bit. Our bodies subconsciously treat the threat of not having enough food as a life or death situation. Once I became aware of it I noticed myself doing it all the time. I can't go on a short hike without packing more food than I need. No trips with family & friends ever run short on food, we always pack too much. I'm sure this used to be a real problem in past history, I'm certain we have evolved this way for a reason, but now we always have enough food. I like to think about it this way, anyway, in part because it explains why self control is so extremely difficult without the judgement. Lack of self control over food really isn't an individual weakness, it is an evolutionary advantage that we all share.

[jimmaswell]

I'm pretty sure this was their point, that stating it as simply "calories in calories out" makes it sound a lot easier than it actually is in practice.

[dahart]

I could buy that, except that the clear implication was that diets don't work because of the language. The article plainly blamed the use of the phrase "calories in, calories out" as a major factor in why diets don't work. That's just not true, the caloric equation isn't why diets don't work, the caloric equation is precisely why diets do work. The phrase also is not the reason that people don't stick to diets either. Sticking to a reduced calorie diet is fighting our instincts and our habits and behaviors and social circles, not our language.

[svachalek]

Diets "work" the same way the war on drugs is "working". You just have to wrap your hands around your eyes and stare really hard at the details, while being very careful not to see the bigger picture.

[lr4444lr]

...We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food...

You just invoked the misleading "brain as a computer" metaphor. I know, it wasn't intentional, and you probably didn't mean it in the way most people would understand the term, but do give the article the benefit of the doubt that these concepts are such commonplaces in our spoken language that they can affect our thinking if we're not careful.

[dahart]

Interesting point, you're right that hard-wired can be seen as a metaphor, but I'm curious why you think it's misleading. I was referring to our evolved state, and my belief that our evolved state has mechanisms that fear not having enough food. If there's a problem with what I said, it's not the metaphor, it's what I believe. I can use biology terms instead of electrical terms, but I'd be saying the same thing. We are, in fact, evolved to crave sex and food. I don't think any biologist or anthropologist would disagree with that. Do you think using the term "hard-wired" instead of "evolved" is misleading?

[lr4444lr]

The brain as something that can be "hardwired" is metaphor is a recent manifestation of the brain as a complex but completely deterministic dispatcher. To be clear, I wasn't implying that you said anything wrong about evolutionary drives and their influence on the difficulty of sticking to an eating regimen for weight loss - just that it's only one way of looking at the problem. For example, it is reasonably understood how to create behavioral avoidance using some ethically questionable as was explored in A Clockwork Orange or seen naturally through phobias, both of which undertook the implicit metaphor that the brain has firmware that if flashed hard and often enough can override "hardwiring". Then there are more benign models of child development which work under the general belief that the brain is a kind of tree, which through pruning and delicate bending of the branches over a long but influential period of life can set disposition permanently (this goes back to Aristotle at least).

What I took away from the article is that decisions with serious consequences such as judicial sentencing, managing our health, and massive government policies are made on overly confident assumptions that descriptive metaphorical explanations are definitive statements of reality. This happens because the convenience of language around the terms confuses people.