Hay Diet

Originally posted by FMF
The 'success' when following the diet, three times, and similar results for relatives and friends who have followed it. Indeed I personally know of noone for whom it hasn't worked to a degree. I have seen no evidence that the weight loss is psychosomatic and plenty of evidence that supports in detail what the diet's proponents say about it. Either way, there is nk that I would start putting that weight back on, even if I continued to separate my food?

Eating less, which appears to me the most likely explanation for why the diet works, is hardly "psychosomatic".

I know that when they analyzed the Atkins diet, they found that it works because people on the Atkins diet eat less (contrary to the reason Atkins himself proposed).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Eating less, which appears to me the most likely explanation for why the diet works, is hardly "psychosomatic".

Well you talked about 'the mind playing tricks'. I really do not think that my mind is playing tricks when I talk about the what and the how much. I have pointed out that I still eat the same foodstuffs as before when I started the Hay Diet and also that I reckon I am eating pretty much the same amount of those foods as before. In fact I still continue to drink alcohol and eat chocolate (and such diet-unfriendly stuff such as oily Padang cuisine and sweet Javanese cuisine) more or less to the same degree as before. If I eat a protein meal in the evening I usually try to drink wine. If I know that I am heading out for beers, I make sure that the evening meal is the carbohydrate one.

Originally posted by FMF
Well you talked about 'the mind playing tricks'. I really do not think that my mind is playing tricks when I talk about the what and the how much. I have pointed out that I still eat the same foodstuffs as before when I started the Hay Diet and also that I reckon I am eating pretty much the same amount of those foods as before. In fact I still continue to drink ...[text shortened]... ow that I am heading out for beers, I make sure that the evening meal is the carbohydrate one.

Yes, well there are a lot of things people in general "really do" and "really don't" think, and many of them are wrong.

This insistence for scientific proof may sound pedantic, but you really can't judge without seeing the evidence. And anecdotal experience, how convincing it may seem, is not evidence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, well there are a lot of things people in general "really do" and "really don't" think, and many of them are wrong.

I am starting to think you suspect I am not posting in good faith. So perhaps I will just leave the topic as it stands.

Originally posted by FMF
I am starting to think you suspect I am not posting in good faith. So perhaps I will just leave the topic as it stands.

I believe you are genuine, but that doesn't mean you are right. A lot of people genuinely believe in astrology, and have lots of anecdotal evidence to back up their belief in astrology, but they are still wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I believe you are genuine, but that doesn't mean you are right. A lot of people genuinely believe in astrology, and have lots of anecdotal evidence to back up their belief in astrology, but they are still wrong.

It's interesting that you are now suggesting I am "wrong" - like the astrologists - despite my anecdotal evidence. I thought it was more a case of you "couldn't be sure if I was right" because of lack of evidence to add to my anecdotal evidence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Eating less, which appears to me the most likely explanation for why the diet works, is hardly "psychosomatic".

We buy the same foodstuffs as before. We buy the same amounts. We cook the same amounts. We serve up the same dishes in more or less the same quantities. We then consume these same amounts. We throw away no more or less than before. I still booze to the same degree. We eat out just as often as we did before. I do not count calories or starve myself or eat any supplements or anything one might describe as low-fat or 'lite'. My exercise patterns have not changed.

Basically nothing has changed except the permutations of the food. It may not be a laboratory style experiment, but it's not bad for a slice of life being lived and lending itself to being analyzed a bit. Mention of astrologists or other kinds of deception hardly addresses the scenario outlined above and does not go much way to explaining the weight loss.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps [...] the types of food are digested more efficiently if they are digested separately meaning more is extracted [from less food] ...or there is less weight-gaining impact from the same amount of food eaten as the digestion is more effective at extracting benefit and discarding that which is not beneficial.

And that is what I find confusing. The vast majority of the 'benefit' we gain from food is energy. That is exactly what causes weight gain. So calling digestion that fails to digest (or discards) energy 'efficient' just seems to be a contradiction to me.
You have also given no evidence that vitamins, minerals and other useful parts of the food are being absorbed in higher or lower amounts than before, so again, there is no reason to believe these are being absorbed more efficiently.
You say 'more is extracted from less food' yet admit that less food is not eaten: the same amount is eaten.

What does 'better digestion' mean for you?
More energy and other parts of the food absorbed into the blood stream. Yes, it is a poor term as if you want to loose weight this would not be a good thing.

Originally posted by FMF
It's interesting that you are now suggesting I am "wrong" - like the astrologists - despite my anecdotal evidence. I thought it was more a case of you "couldn't be sure if I was right" because of lack of evidence to add to my anecdotal evidence.

No, I don't think you're wrong per se, although it is certainly a possibility. However, you have reached certain conclusions without evidence.

Originally posted by FMF
We buy the same foodstuffs as before. We buy the same amounts. We cook the same amounts. We serve up the same dishes in more or less the same quantities. We then consume these same amounts. We throw away no more or less than before. I still booze to the same degree. We eat out just as often as we did before. I do not count calories or starve myself or eat any su ...[text shortened]... addresses the scenario outlined above and does not go much way to explaining the weight loss.

More or less... more, or less? You don't know until you've measured it.

For Aristotle, it was obvious that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. After all, it's obvious to see, isn't it? It wasn't until people actually started measuring gravity that they came to a different conclusion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
More or less... more, or less? You don't know until you've measured it.

That's right. "More or less". It means approximately. If I said that it was "exactly the same" then you'd be mentioning astrology and deception again!

Some things I am conscious of eating more of in fact: mutton, duck, catfish, potatoes and 'french' bread. I eat a bit less cheese because I don't really get into it without bread. Apart from that, stuff like rice, bread, fruit, greens and legumes, other vegetables, chicken, fish, biscuits, chocolate, fermented soya bean curd, eggs, ice cream, coffee and sugar, and other stuff, I am eating near as dammit the same quantities as ever.

I have the crude-but-alright 'measurement' of my shopping patterns. Nothing has changed much. And we don't tend to throw much out. I am not eating less than I was before the regime began. So that's not where you're going to find your answer, I think. I am reporting all this in good faith, remember.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
However, you have reached certain conclusions without evidence.

I have reached my conclusions on plenty evidence! Not complete evidence or perfect evidence or not perhaps irrefutable evidence (yet). But to suggest that I reached the conclusions i have without evidence is a rather unscientific exaggeration on your part!

Originally posted by FMF
I have reached my conclusions on plenty evidence! Not complete evidence or perfect evidence or not perhaps irrefutable evidence (yet). But to suggest that I reached the conclusions i have [b]without evidence is a rather unscientific exaggeration on your part![/b]

Well, anecdotal evidence is not completely worthless, but at best it's a reason to start to really investigate something.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, anecdotal evidence is not completely worthless, but at best it's a reason to start to really investigate something.

Well there's the weight loss. That's not anecdotal at all. There's the constancy in terms of grocery shopping and the overall unchanged pattern of food consumption. That scrapes in as not entirely anecdotal, if you'll take it on good faith. Same goes for the unchanged exercise regime. And then there are the experiences of family and friends who have had the same success as me with the Hay Diet. That is anecdotal, clearly, although some of them may have been a little more scientific in their monitoring than me, for sure. Maybe I have got this all wrong[/i]. Perhaps we'll never know. Investigating diets is not really a hobby of mine. But posting at RHP is. Sometimes legs are being pulled just a little. Thank you for all your thoughts and reminders that things aren't always what they seem.