Diets don't work, researcher says

Traci Mann makes several good points, which I'll summarize and let you the reader click to see more and judge for themselves.

1. All types of diets that say a particular food type is guaranteed to help are "magic."

2. Willpower is of little avail with something as complex as dieting.

3. That's because dieting causes neurological, hormonal and metabolic changes.

4. Don't forget there's a diet "industry." It's for-profit, and especially when selling the idea of "one magic food," is selling you something.

5. Initial results in a diet that look good are a "honeymoon."

6. Some dieters, around 5 percent or a bit more, do succeed. Don't consider them the modern misstated "The exception that proves the rule," except for proving the rule that more than 90 percent of people don't succeed.

I first link Mann's new book, then add a couple of my own observations.

First?

This is also yet another argument for medicine in general, and not just, but including diet, not necessarily becoming physics, but still "tightening" p-values and other statistical standards for research significance. Relatively small tweaks, even, would clear out a lot of chaff on diets, specific foods, just how bad sodium is (setting aside basic inorganic chemistry, even, and sodium-potassium ratios) and more.

The same is true for related social sciences like psychology and sociology, and the multidisciplinary field of public health.

It would also lessen replication problems and related issues.

Second?

The 5 percent success rate is interesting. That's of course roughly the same estimate of people who, after 1 or 2 tries (repeated effort probably boosts it somewhat, but who knows how much) stay clean/sober after initial effort. And, while AA, or AA + Hazelden method, may not be that successful, I don't claim that “secular” alternatives necessarily do much better. Willpower may be of modestly more effect, but brain and other changes have a fair amount of parallel between addiction and food/diet. Not being told you’re “powerless” may help somewhat, but per issues of willpower, it’s still a challenge.

Fortunately, with addiction, it’s just avoiding certain chemicals, not trying to moderate every chemical in front of your face.

And thus, another parallel is that this may weigh in on the side of, if a person has enough problems to be classified as an "abuser," why, again, abstinence is easier than moderation.

Diets don’t matter – calories do

As long as particular diet isn’t unsafe, there’s nothing “wrong” with it. There’s also nothing special about any of them, per the largest medical study ever.

Counting overall calories is the bottom line.

‘Health halo’ or Subway BS effect?

By whichever name, the effect is the same — people who eat Subway vs. McDonald’s, for example, because they think they’re eating healthier (i.e., less fast and saturated fat) misestimate calories and so eat more at Subway.

Contrary to the surveyor, though, I don’t think this is idle ignorance. I think it’s a mix of willful ignorance and the typical American desire for “magic bullet” solutions, especially, but by no means limited to, diet.

Monounsaturated fats do NOT magically help you lose calories. Even fiber from whole grains doesn’t, though it can at least “satiate” your innards more.

(That said, that Subway sub, if you’re getting it on white-flour bread, definitely isn’t a lot healthier than Mickey D’s.)

Oh, and beyond providing clear calorie content for fast food, along with fat and saturated fat, sodium content ought to be mandatory, too.

But, back to the main point.

You wanna lose weight? Stop eating so damned much, and start exercising more. Stop looking for magic bullets.

As for those so-called health haloes, French researcher Pierre Chandon tells people that, when they get to a restaurant like Subway, which they recognize as having a health halo effect, to practice active skepticism against that halo.

Read the full story for his suggestions.

Those Chick-fil-A cows are right in a way they don’t even know

Cutting down on red meat can do even more than eating all-local foods to reduce your carbon footprint.

Why?

Well, the story doesn’t go into details, but I’ll tell you why. I don’t know about fish, but I know a chicken can convert about 4 pounds of feed into 1 pound of animal weight gain.

A cow? It takes 8 pounds of feed to do that.

Hogs, while not as good as chickens, are still better than beef, needing about 5-6 pounds of feed to put on a pound of weight gain.

Eggs, of course, come from chickens, not cows, so the same principal applies.

Eating less of all meat, if not at least occasionally going full vegetarian, as I try to do every Saturday, is much better yet.

But, if or when you must eat meat, do chicken (or other poultry) and fish first. Then, if you must have red meat, put pork ahead of beef.

Finally, if you must have been, look for grass-fed beef. It’s healthier for you as well as less environmentally destructive. Or, try bison. (Warning: More and more bison is being grain-fed, at least for its “finishing off.” Look for grass-fed if you can.)