Here's to having that appetite monster off of my back!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/opinion/diet-advice-that-ignores-hunger.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

That is a fascinating article, thanks for sharing.

This is excellent

Two things I found interesting.

One, the description of the effects of semi-starvation sound like what I experienced as a super morbidly obese person.

Two, it is ludicrous to extrapolate results based on a six-day long "diet". That study design was so fundamentally flawed. It was like they had no basic foundation in metabolism or obesity. Or, even used basic common sense.

If one is being starved, of course hunger is present. For many of us, that's not the issue as much as why we cannot eat till we are no longer hungry but till we are stuffed. My problem was eating too many carbs. I ate enormous amounts of carbs prior to being banded. I could easily consume a half a box of Pasta if not more. That's half a pound of pasta uncooked..which means more than a pound after cooking. Same with rice, bread, potato...

These days I eat a fraction of that but there are times when I know I could eat more. That's when I have to make myself stop. Not the band, but me.

I don't know that this study addresses eating when you aren't necessarily hungry. For me, that's a bigger issue.

This is an essay (not a logical analysis) about a couple of badly designed studies that produced information, but no conclusive, extrapolatable findings one can apply to a broad population. The first study cited had a lot more "treatments" than just dietary changes: The 35 respondents (a very small sample) were all conscientious objectors, male, mostly Mennonites, and all confined to work camps with other conscientious objectors, and required to walk at least 22 miles a week. To imagine that the changes they experienced while limited to a 1600 calorie diet were due solely to the food they ate or that their responses during the study were typical of what people not confined to a work camp or were women (and a host of other differences) is ludicrous. The study results didn't even compare the test group to any control group living under similar circumstances. I'd hypothesize that others at the work camp didn't fare well either, no matter what they were eating.

The second study was conducted more recently -- for a total of six days. Six frickin' days. Yeah, those findings are conclusive of nothing, given that six days is about the amount of time it takes for an obese person to lose 10 pounds from their liver. And then what happens during the next three to twelve months? Gee, it'd be nice to know. But this study certainly doesn't investigate those outcomes.

Finally, the essayist admits he favors a different theory that neither of the studies he discusses even tested, but still uses those studies to "prove" the legitimacy of his favored theory. It's like reading two badly designed studies that conclude: Red makes people angry, and blue makes people peaceful. And then concluding: Therefore, green must make people jealous.

What a crap article. I hate to say this out loud, but as much as I used to admire The New York Times, it has gone terribly downhill. Are there no editors left there with any brains?

1600 calorie is semi starvation? since banded i eat 800-1200 for years now. i don't want to slip into depression or psychosis like the article suggests. difference is i eat mostly protein and fats, not so much starch...conclusion? potatoes drive people crazy..

It was an Op-Ed, which by definition. Is an opinion piece. I thought it brought up some very interesting thoughts and ideas (which is the point of an Op-Ed).

I wouldn't call it a crap article at all.

.conclusion? potatoes drive people crazy..

Uh, oh. I live in Idaho.....

@ Babbs, it is fundamentally accepted that those of us from Idaho are crazy. (I live right on the WA/ID border- live in WA, work 5 minutes away in ID so I count as one of those crazies).