Nutrition, medicine, psychology are beset by empiricism: trying to find facts without having theories to support them. Journalists then make hay with the results, hinting at conclusions and advice for the public, using the authority of Science, but really bringing it into disrepute. An awful lot of research money has been wasted in this way and of course much of the work is not reproducible.
>> Nutrition, medicine, psychology are beset by empiricism: trying to find facts without having theories to support them.
Really? Seems to me there are a ton of theories but precious few facts.
Atkins, low carb, high carb, gluten free, etc. Theories everywhere. But science simply cannot tell us what foods to eat and what to avoid. It's very frustrating to me how limited our knowledge of the human body is.
i disagree. it really isn't hard to follow what science says. problem is there is a lot of money to be made peddling bullshit. it's a lot like finance where 99 pct of stuff out there is garbage but there does exist fundamental guiding principles that exist as fact.
The 'facts' that I referred to are the results of correlation studies as published in science journals. The diets you mention are mainstream fads.
You're right, though, it is frustrating! My personal opinion is that it is the way we use food for pleasure and comfort that it is to blame. We are literally getting high on what we eat, which is deleterious for health if performed without break for long periods. But there's no obvious way for a scientist to address this idea at present; it would be considered too subjective and thus ignored by the majority.
You can get high on carbs or alcohol sure enough. Try getting high on protein or fat though.
Telling carboholics they need to eat less food is like telling alcoholics they need to drink less liquid. It doesn't work - you've got to be more specific.
It's complicated. If I gave an obese person a bag of sugar or a kilo of lard she probably wouldn't enjoy these things. On the other hand some folk can eat luxury foods regularly without ill effect. It depends on personality and intent as much as upon specific foodstuffs and substances.
And are you sure about protein? Personally I experience a strong desire for meat if I haven't had any for a few days. The fulfillment of that desire creates a visceral pleasure. Furthermore I can't imagine giving up apparently innocuous items like tomatoes, either. For a few months perhaps but after a few years I'm sure I would pine at the memory of fresh juicy tomatoes.
If you go keto/atkins/etc for a while you get sick of meat. At least I have. It becomes tedious to eat and my portion sizes have dropped. I end up eating more vegetables than I ever did before, and take more pleasure from them.
There's certainly some combination of psychology and physiology at play here. There are many nutrients we need that we can't get without a suitably diverse diet, so we're hardwired to seek out variety. Even people who are starving or constantly on the edge will get tired of having a diet that doesn't include much variety.
My father loves to talk about how he can eat the same thing every day, but whenever I visit, he's very quick to suggest going out to eat. He obviously gets tired of eating the same thing over and over, but he doesn't want to deviate too much from his routine since it helps keep him from regaining weight.
I know I'm starting to crave a steak - it's been a few weeks, and normally I would have steak and potatoes on Sundays as a treat after an extra-long workout.
Yup, some folks can have the occasional drink or drink socially. Some folks need to swear off the stuff entirely. For carboholics, probably swearing off refined carbs would be enough.
fad - an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.
synonyms: craze, vogue, trend, fashion, mode, enthusiasm, passion, obsession, mania, rage, compulsion, fixation, fetish, fancy, whim, fascination "when I was a kid, no fad was more apparent than the coonskin cap"
I disagree calling all diets fads, just because the theories haven't been definitely proven or disproven, if they are accurate at making predictions it suggests there's something to the theory does it not?
almost any diet works because it relies on totally avoiding a big source of calories. For instance, carbs. if you consume less calories than you burn, you lose weight. problem in my opinion is they use such a big brush to cut things out that people can be miserable while on them. if its the end of the day and you've eaten 700 less calories than you need and have gotten all the protein and fat you need then guess what. You can eat 200 calories of ice cream or chips if you want and still lose weight!
I don't disagree at all, I was complaining about referring to all diets as "fads", as if there is no evidence that some have substantial advantages over others, which varies per person to some degree. For example, on a low carb diet, my food cravings are miniscule.
The thinking "if you consume less calories than you burn, you lose weight" is also called into question every time I go through a cycle of this diet. It is most definitely not as simple as calories consumed(!) minus calories burned. If that was the case, I would be gaining a LOT of weight when I am not on this diet, yet I do not.
