Media says: For Happiness, Eat More Fruits & Veggies - POSTED ON: Oct 14, 2012
Yesterday, my article was about the
Difference between Correlation and Causation. Below are two examples of media handling the same recent health research study.
7 Daily Servings of Fruits, Veggies Best for Happiness, Study Finds 'Strive for 5' might need an update. Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) "People who eat seven servings of fruit and vegetables a day have the highest levels of happiness and mental health, according to a new study. In a joint effort with Dartmouth University, researchers at the University of Warwick examined the eating habits of 80,000 people in England and found that mental well-being rose with the number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, peaking at seven servings a day. The study, which appears in the journal Social Indicators Research, defied a serving as about 80 grams (2.8 ounces). "The statistical power of fruit and vegetables was a surprise. Diet has traditionally been ignored by well-being researchers," study co-author Sarah Stewart-Brown, a professor of public health, said in a university news release. Further research is needed to learn more about the reasons behind the findings, she added. "This study has shown surprising results, and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery," study co-author Andrew Oswald, a professor in the economics department, said in the news release. Currently, many Western governments recommend that people eat five servings of fruit and vegetables a day to protect against heart disease and cancer, the release noted. While the study found an association between fruit and vegetable servings and well-being, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship."
7 Daily Servings of Fruits, Veggies Best for Happiness, Study Finds 'Strive for 5' might need an update. Oct. 12 (HealthDay News)
"People who eat seven servings of fruit and vegetables a day have the highest levels of happiness and mental health, according to a new study. In a joint effort with Dartmouth University, researchers at the University of Warwick examined the eating habits of 80,000 people in England and found that mental well-being rose with the number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, peaking at seven servings a day. The study, which appears in the journal Social Indicators Research, defied a serving as about 80 grams (2.8 ounces). "The statistical power of fruit and vegetables was a surprise. Diet has traditionally been ignored by well-being researchers," study co-author Sarah Stewart-Brown, a professor of public health, said in a university news release. Further research is needed to learn more about the reasons behind the findings, she added. "This study has shown surprising results, and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery," study co-author Andrew Oswald, a professor in the economics department, said in the news release. Currently, many Western governments recommend that people eat five servings of fruit and vegetables a day to protect against heart disease and cancer, the release noted. While the study found an association between fruit and vegetable servings and well-being, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship."
Here’s another take on the same Research.
Study: If You're 'Keen to Stay Cheery,' 7 Fruits and Vegetables a Day &nbs...
The Difference Between Causation and Correlation - POSTED ON: Oct 13, 2012
One of the most common errors in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies. In theory, these are easy to distinguish … an action or occurrence can CAUSE another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can CORRELATE with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated. But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense. In general, we should all be wary of our own bias. We like explanations. The media often concludes a causal relationship among correlated observances when causality was not even considered by a research study itself. Without clear and definite reasons to accept that one thing CAUSES another, the fact that a correlation exists is all we should accept. Again, two events occurring in close proximity does not imply that one caused the other, even if it seems to makes perfect sense.
Once upon a time, this type of error wasn’t too bad. If one ate a berry and got sick, it was wise to see meaning in that data. (Better safe than sorry). The same goes for a red-hot coal. Only one touch will give all the correlations needed. Being bullied by a primitive world of nature, it's far worse to miss a link than it is to make one up. A false negative yields the greatest risk. Now conditions are reversed. People in modern civilization are bullies over nature. New claims about causation are often made so we can make large interventions in nature. A false positive today often means approving drugs that have no effect, or imposing regulations that make no difference, or wasting money in schemes to limit unemployment. Now, as science grows more powerful and government more technocratic, the stakes of correlation…. of making counterfeit relationships and bogus findings,… grow larger and larger. A false positive is now more burdensome than it's ever been. The only thing we have to fight this attitude is the catchphrase. “correlation is not causation”. I suggest that we be very cautious in the way we allow media claims to influence us into making personal changes in our own behaviors, ... especially in relation to the way they tend to limit our personal choices of the foods we eat, and the way they tend to add to our personal expense and health risks through recommendions of unnecessary drugs. Mistaking correlation for causation finds a cause that simply isn't there.
Cutting Carbs? or Cutting Calories? - POSTED ON: Sep 17, 2012
Which is better or most effective, cutting Carbs, or cutting Calories?
Everything I’ve seen and experienced personally, leads me to believe that calories matter even when one chooses to eat low-carb. There’s a possibility that one can eat a few more calories by reducing carbs, but … for most people … the amount of extra calories doesn't appear to be a very large number. It seems like there are an endless number of specific diets and rules for weight loss. One of the most popular of these rules is that cutting carbohydrates (carbs) is the best way to lose weight. The Atkins diet, first popular in the 1970s.is the most famous low-carb diet. This diet recommends limiting foods high in carbs, such as bread, pasta, rice, and starchy vegetables such as corn and potatoes. Carbs are replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of proteins and fats (meat, poultry, fish, eggs and cheese) and other low-carb foods (mostly vegetables). What does the evidence show us about whether low-carb diets really are better for weight loss and weight-maintenance than other diets? Conventional wisdom says that a “calorie is a calorie” and it doesn't matter what types of food the calories come from, and therefore, all reduced-energy (calorie) diets should lead to equivalent weight loss. However, some studies have reported that low-carb diets, in the short-term, lead to greater weight loss than other types of diets. What are some possible explanations for these results?
1. Changes in body composition Energy is stored in the body as protein, fat, and glycogen, which is a form of carbohydrate. If there is an imbalance between how many of these nutrients are ingested (through the food that is eaten) and how many are used by the body for every day functions, body composition will change. In turn, this will affect body weight because of the different impact that the relative amounts of stored protein, fat and carbohydrates have on body weight. However, the vast majority of studies in which they’ve measured calorie intake very accurately (that is, they’ve locked people in a room and measured exactly what they’ve eaten for several days), show absolutely no difference in weight loss based on the composition of the diet. High-protein diets and high-carb diets resulted in the same weight loss. 2. Changes in metabolic rate The body’s metabolic rate (the amount of energy expended by the body in a given time) is dependent on the composition of the diet. Consumption of protein, for example, is known to result in a larger increase in energy expenditure for several hours after a meal compared with the consumption of fat or carbs. But the overall effect of diet composition on total energy expenditure is relatively small. As a result, the assumption that a “calorie is a calorie” is probably a reasonable estimation as far as energy e...
Science Has Failed - POSTED ON: Sep 13, 2012
Although almost every weight-loss expert seems to have something to sell, ...... despite the marketing hype ,...... there are kernals of truth in many of the basic things they say.
"Science has failed us in the weight loss department. It literally gets an “F.” The culture has failed us as well. Far too many people have intense moral judgments towards anyone with excess pounds, which contributes to the hidden epidemic of social disconnection, apathy, and plain old sadness.
Let’s face it: when it comes to the subject of weight gain and weight loss, we’re clueless. And from that place of cluelessness we tend to flail around, we try our hand at the most inane weight loss strategies, we diet for decades, we consume diet foods ...that are, if you care to closely study the scientific literature ... toxic."
Marc David - Psychology of Eating
Binge Avoidance + Adaptive Thermogenesis - POSTED ON: Aug 24, 2012
It's hard not to binge on delicious food. For more about that experience, go to the bottom of the page, and Watch an entertaining video at the end of this article. However, that is NOT the ONLY reason why weight-loss is hard. I've been reading about "Adaptive Thermogenesis" . Physical systems (like machines) stay the same. Biological systems (like humans) adapt.
Weight-loss and maintenance have less to do with motivation and will-power than most people think. In fact it has far more to do with how your body adjusts to, and is capable of, resisting a calorie deficit. Putting less fuel in the tank of one's car will always cause the car to drive a shorter distance. However, the human body adapts to less fuel ....meaning eating fewer calories.... by becoming more ‘efficient’ and running the same distance on less fuel than before. That is the big difference between simple physics and biology
For a better understanding of the issue of energy-in/energy-out, read my Summaries of what Gary Taubes has to say about it. WWGF - Chapter 6 Thermodynamics for Dummies, Part 1 and Chapter 7 Thermodynamics for Dummies, Part 2. Here is a great article by Dr. Arya Sharma M.D. on this issue:
The Role of Adaptive Thermogenesis in Resistance to Weight Loss No intentional weight loser continues to lose weight till she disappears. Sooner or later every diet, every medication, or every type of bariatric surgery will result in a weight loss ‘plateau’ (better referred to as a ‘floor’) - a weight, beyond which losing even more weight (and keeping it off) becomes an almost ’super-human’ feat. However, there is considerable variation in how much weight people can lose and keep off. Although the average sustainable weight loss with ‘eat-less-move-more’ (ELMM) approaches is about 3-5% of initial weight, some folks manage to lose considerably more, while others struggle to even simply stop gaining weight. This has less to do with motivation or will-power than most people think. In fact, it has far more to do with how your body adjusts to and is capable of resisting a calorie deficit.
While putting less fuel in the tank of your car will consistently decrease the distance that you can drive, our bodies adapt to less fuel (i.e. eating fewer calories) by becoming more ‘efficient’ and running the same distance on less fuel than before. That is the big difference between simple physics and biology. Biological systems adapt - physical systems (like your car) stay the same. In the case of huma...
Mar 01, 2021 DietHobby: A Digital Scrapbook. 2000+ Blogs and 500+ Videos in DietHobby reflect my personal experience in weight-loss and maintenance. One-size-doesn't-fit-all, and I address many ways-of-eating whenever they become interesting or applicable to me.
Jun 01, 2020 DietHobby is my Personal Blog Website. DietHobby sells nothing; posts no advertisements; accepts no contributions. It does not recommend or endorse any specific diets, ways-of-eating, lifestyles, supplements, foods, products, activities, or memberships.
May 01, 2017 DietHobby is Mobile-Friendly. Technical changes! It is now easier to view DietHobby on iPhones and other mobile devices.