They found no benefit to using a parachute. These findings might be because they tested the hypothesis by jumping from stationary planes on the ground.
Some people very much think that. I'm not sure why.
The fact that tons of people in long-term ketosis have sky-high LA on their OQ tells me that it's not an all-or-nothing thing, at least not in any of the people I've seen tests of.
In fact, almost none of the known-low-LA people I know have been eating a ketogenic diet. Keto minus PUFA cuts out a TON of the food. The only one even close is a beef/dairy-only carnivore guy.
Hm, have you considered a subset of the "food availability" story?
Because with frequent snacking in between meals, there's limited chance for the insulin levels to fall off. And if you have readily available food, and 5+ meals a day (IOW, eating from the moment folks wake up all the way to the time they collapse in bed), the only time your insulin barely goes down is during the night. Maybe.
Not saying it explains all of it (it definitely doesn't), but it could be one factor. Since cutting snacks and/or skipping dinner seems to work for some people. I mean, my gran used to give this advice (don't snack, skip dinner) some 30 years ago... Although in her case -- thin as a whistle all her life -- it's of questionable value (wink).
I sort of have, also cultural norms. When I was a kid your mom fed you breakfast, there was a snack & lunch in school, and then mom fed you dinner. The social framework enforced pretty much 3.5 meals every school day and 2-3 on the weekend (I was usually too lazy to wake up for breakfast).
It could be that "availability" wasn't necessarily limited by material wealth in our grandparents' and parents' time, but by social norms & shaming haha.
Personally, cutting snacks or skipping a meal was always my standard mode, even as a kid. I only ate breakfast if it was provided/encouraged, since I was a late riser. I much preferred a few big meals to many small meals. That didn't prevent me from getting morbidly obese, or staying that way, heh.
It might help some people on the margin if they're right at the border.
Interestingly all those three causes (“design ships with better safety features” or “ensure handover protocol between crews” and “don’t overwork your crew to the point officers fall asleep.”) have a common root cause, "greed".
Yea, the top level "cause" of almost everything starts to coalesce. The CICO people basically argue that greed causes obesity.
On the other hand, I think that proves too much: if "greed" did it, why don't all ships sink, all planes crash, and how come our equally greedy grand-grand-parents and grand-parents weren't as obese?
Greed will always be there. Yet, somehow, we manage to work around it quite a bit.
I think the answer for obesity is that it isn't really in your or your genes' best interest to be obese, so greed couldn't really be a good explanation of obesity to begin with. I do think greed is a problem for corporations though, mostly kept in check by regulations and to some extent the market not favoring shipbuilders whose ships keep sinking. But I do genuinely believe a lot of the world's problems come back to greed as a real cause, even obesity can be viewed as the greed of manufacturers who profit from cheap seed oils and profit from tricking their customers into eating way more than what is in the customer's own interest.
To me, that's a little like blaming gravity for plane crashes. Sure, it's causal, but it's not going to change any time soon. Whatever "root cause" for us means, it has to be more actionable than "fundamental law of nature."
I guess root cause is maybe a bad word, it kind of suggests going all the way back, but that always leads to the origin of the universe. As for greed not changing anytime soon that's a fair point, but it is still surprisingly actionable though I think! Regulations I think is a good example of a pragmatic resolution to the problem of greedy shipbuilders, and importantly I *don't* think the most extreme versions of libertarian free market ideas work to combat it (sufficiently). Similarily I think curtailing the extreme greed of giant corporations would avoid a lot of the mess we're in regarding obesity, I do think it's pretty obvious that that's a deeper cause than whatever mechanism(s) are the more proximate causes. (Not saying either is more important, obviously breaking the chain of causality anywhere would solve the problem, so it's really a question of where is the most tenable place to fix.)
Yes, we need to understand the underlying structure of the causal process to understand the mechanisms. This is why RCTs aren't always good (even if they were ethical, feasible, and perfectly measurable): they obscure the mechanisms.
My dream is to come up with a systems-biological model of human metabolism that could be fully validated by various N=1 trials, whatever RCTs we could find, etc. But if I understand anabology correctly, it's still the case that we, to a first-order approximation, know nothing about why our bodies work the way they do.
All the unknown-unknowns really throw a wrench into that method. Yet I'm hopeful because apparently some idiot-level dietary intervention like potato/cream diets have drastic effects in some people.
I am wondering how much may be psychological. The body is an intelligent adaptive system and can be influenced by belief - see placebo and nocebo for obvious ones, see the work on cell agency and collective intelligence in shaping bodies, not to mention the whole pandora's box of parapsychology.
Undeniably we have more intense and psychologically stressful lives now than in the past. Information flow has expanded from a gentle stream to Niagara Falls. Either the body is being requested to store fat even well beyond what is healthy and adaptive, or, the body wants to be slim but some factor is so strong even it cannot compensate.
One other common theme in your internet diets is they're done with intention, focus and a neutral or positive frame of mind. Though consciously the diet idea may be stupid and sure to fail, there's a genuine desire to try it in good faith and gather the data. That focus and openness might contribute. Or might be self-selecting for people who can benefit disproportionately from such mental factors. Consider that the mainstream advice is "if you don't want to be fat and miserable, simply adjust your diet so you never feel satisfied or get to enjoy food ever again"
There may also be a knock on effect: something physical causes a *propensity toward* fat storage, then growing awareness of obesity and difficulty of reversing may put the subconscious into a stressed, hopeless state, the natural response of which may be to pile on fat reserves to help survive.
Yea it could be. Even if it isn't a direct effect, it would certainly have countless indirect/subconscious knock-on effects.
I.e. if you go into the potato/cream diet with the belief it won't work and is stupid, you're more likely to give up the first time it's inconvenient. Or you run out of food. Or when it doesn't feel great. You might interpret that uncomfortable feeling as impending death and quit the diet.
There's even more to this though, like the experiment of diet shakes vs health shakes vs luxury shakes, where what the subjects *were told about* what they were consuming affected how their body handled the nutrients, and how satisfying they found it psychologically, though the shakes were identical.
Yea good point. It sure is mysterious. I think for many people, for example, something like a cream diet or chocolate diet or honey diet is "weird" cause those are not "food foods" they are "dessert." Clearly a diet consisting entirely of desserts isn't healthy?!
I literally had this discussion with a family member today. Surely, chocolate couldn't be healthy?! It's candy, for God's sake!
They actually have done an RCT of parachute use! https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
They found no benefit to using a parachute. These findings might be because they tested the hypothesis by jumping from stationary planes on the ground.
Sheesh, some people will never be convinced no matter how many RCTs we do! Now we're critisizing RCTs?!? Highest quality of evidence ;)
incoming milk and cookies diet
Santa Actual, come in over
Nice, I wholeheartedly agree with your thinking here!
Do people really think PUFAs are preferentially burnt in ketosis? Do you know why they think that? It sounds interesting.
Some people very much think that. I'm not sure why.
The fact that tons of people in long-term ketosis have sky-high LA on their OQ tells me that it's not an all-or-nothing thing, at least not in any of the people I've seen tests of.
In fact, almost none of the known-low-LA people I know have been eating a ketogenic diet. Keto minus PUFA cuts out a TON of the food. The only one even close is a beef/dairy-only carnivore guy.
Great post!
Thanks!
Hm, have you considered a subset of the "food availability" story?
Because with frequent snacking in between meals, there's limited chance for the insulin levels to fall off. And if you have readily available food, and 5+ meals a day (IOW, eating from the moment folks wake up all the way to the time they collapse in bed), the only time your insulin barely goes down is during the night. Maybe.
Not saying it explains all of it (it definitely doesn't), but it could be one factor. Since cutting snacks and/or skipping dinner seems to work for some people. I mean, my gran used to give this advice (don't snack, skip dinner) some 30 years ago... Although in her case -- thin as a whistle all her life -- it's of questionable value (wink).
I sort of have, also cultural norms. When I was a kid your mom fed you breakfast, there was a snack & lunch in school, and then mom fed you dinner. The social framework enforced pretty much 3.5 meals every school day and 2-3 on the weekend (I was usually too lazy to wake up for breakfast).
It could be that "availability" wasn't necessarily limited by material wealth in our grandparents' and parents' time, but by social norms & shaming haha.
Personally, cutting snacks or skipping a meal was always my standard mode, even as a kid. I only ate breakfast if it was provided/encouraged, since I was a late riser. I much preferred a few big meals to many small meals. That didn't prevent me from getting morbidly obese, or staying that way, heh.
It might help some people on the margin if they're right at the border.
Interestingly all those three causes (“design ships with better safety features” or “ensure handover protocol between crews” and “don’t overwork your crew to the point officers fall asleep.”) have a common root cause, "greed".
Yea, the top level "cause" of almost everything starts to coalesce. The CICO people basically argue that greed causes obesity.
On the other hand, I think that proves too much: if "greed" did it, why don't all ships sink, all planes crash, and how come our equally greedy grand-grand-parents and grand-parents weren't as obese?
Greed will always be there. Yet, somehow, we manage to work around it quite a bit.
I think the answer for obesity is that it isn't really in your or your genes' best interest to be obese, so greed couldn't really be a good explanation of obesity to begin with. I do think greed is a problem for corporations though, mostly kept in check by regulations and to some extent the market not favoring shipbuilders whose ships keep sinking. But I do genuinely believe a lot of the world's problems come back to greed as a real cause, even obesity can be viewed as the greed of manufacturers who profit from cheap seed oils and profit from tricking their customers into eating way more than what is in the customer's own interest.
To me, that's a little like blaming gravity for plane crashes. Sure, it's causal, but it's not going to change any time soon. Whatever "root cause" for us means, it has to be more actionable than "fundamental law of nature."
I guess root cause is maybe a bad word, it kind of suggests going all the way back, but that always leads to the origin of the universe. As for greed not changing anytime soon that's a fair point, but it is still surprisingly actionable though I think! Regulations I think is a good example of a pragmatic resolution to the problem of greedy shipbuilders, and importantly I *don't* think the most extreme versions of libertarian free market ideas work to combat it (sufficiently). Similarily I think curtailing the extreme greed of giant corporations would avoid a lot of the mess we're in regarding obesity, I do think it's pretty obvious that that's a deeper cause than whatever mechanism(s) are the more proximate causes. (Not saying either is more important, obviously breaking the chain of causality anywhere would solve the problem, so it's really a question of where is the most tenable place to fix.)
Yes, we need to understand the underlying structure of the causal process to understand the mechanisms. This is why RCTs aren't always good (even if they were ethical, feasible, and perfectly measurable): they obscure the mechanisms.
My dream is to come up with a systems-biological model of human metabolism that could be fully validated by various N=1 trials, whatever RCTs we could find, etc. But if I understand anabology correctly, it's still the case that we, to a first-order approximation, know nothing about why our bodies work the way they do.
All the unknown-unknowns really throw a wrench into that method. Yet I'm hopeful because apparently some idiot-level dietary intervention like potato/cream diets have drastic effects in some people.
Great post.
I am wondering how much may be psychological. The body is an intelligent adaptive system and can be influenced by belief - see placebo and nocebo for obvious ones, see the work on cell agency and collective intelligence in shaping bodies, not to mention the whole pandora's box of parapsychology.
Undeniably we have more intense and psychologically stressful lives now than in the past. Information flow has expanded from a gentle stream to Niagara Falls. Either the body is being requested to store fat even well beyond what is healthy and adaptive, or, the body wants to be slim but some factor is so strong even it cannot compensate.
One other common theme in your internet diets is they're done with intention, focus and a neutral or positive frame of mind. Though consciously the diet idea may be stupid and sure to fail, there's a genuine desire to try it in good faith and gather the data. That focus and openness might contribute. Or might be self-selecting for people who can benefit disproportionately from such mental factors. Consider that the mainstream advice is "if you don't want to be fat and miserable, simply adjust your diet so you never feel satisfied or get to enjoy food ever again"
There may also be a knock on effect: something physical causes a *propensity toward* fat storage, then growing awareness of obesity and difficulty of reversing may put the subconscious into a stressed, hopeless state, the natural response of which may be to pile on fat reserves to help survive.
Yea it could be. Even if it isn't a direct effect, it would certainly have countless indirect/subconscious knock-on effects.
I.e. if you go into the potato/cream diet with the belief it won't work and is stupid, you're more likely to give up the first time it's inconvenient. Or you run out of food. Or when it doesn't feel great. You might interpret that uncomfortable feeling as impending death and quit the diet.
There's even more to this though, like the experiment of diet shakes vs health shakes vs luxury shakes, where what the subjects *were told about* what they were consuming affected how their body handled the nutrients, and how satisfying they found it psychologically, though the shakes were identical.
Yea good point. It sure is mysterious. I think for many people, for example, something like a cream diet or chocolate diet or honey diet is "weird" cause those are not "food foods" they are "dessert." Clearly a diet consisting entirely of desserts isn't healthy?!
I literally had this discussion with a family member today. Surely, chocolate couldn't be healthy?! It's candy, for God's sake!