I think that there are better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. (60%)
ETA: apparently I need to clarify.
It is way more likely than 60% that gastric bypass surgery, liposuction, starvation, and meth will cause fat loss. I am not talking about that. I am talking about healthy diet and exercise. Can most people who want to lose weight do that deliberately, through diet and exercise? I think it’s likely but not certain.
I almost want this reworded the opposite way for this reason, as a 40% chance that there are not better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. Even if I didn’t have first and second hand examples to fall back on I don’t see why there is real doubt on this question. Another more interesting variation is, does such a method exist that is practical for a large percentage of people?
Ah, but betting for a proposition is equivalent to betting against its opposite. Why are you so certain that there’s no better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss?
But If you do change your mind, please don’t change the original, as then everyone’s comments would be irrelevant.
Absolutely right. This is an important point that many people miss. If you’re uncertain about your estimated probability, or even merely risk averse, then you may want to take neither side of the implied bet. Fine, but at least figure out some odds where you feel like you should have an indifferent expectation.
I think, with some confidence, that there are better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. The low confidence estimate has more to do with my reluctance to be wrong than anything else.
If I were wrong, it would be because overweight is mostly genetic and irreversible (something I have seen argued and supported with clinical studies.)
Generally speaking, most diets and moderate exercise work very well for a year or two. But the shangri-la diet tends to work for as long as you do it (for many/most? people). Also, certain supplements work, but I forgot which. So I gotta agree with you.
Upvoted, because I say diet and exercise work at 85% (for a significant fraction of people; there may be some with unlucky genes who can’t lose weight that way).
This post has generated so much more controversy than I expected.
I meant exactly exercise and healthy eating! I thought people would assume I meant that. Not gastric bypass surgery, not liposuction, not starvation, not amputating limbs.
That’s ok. Just put an ETA in the top-level comment to clarify that. There’s a lot of wiggle room around “healthy eating” though. Where are you drawing the line between calorie restriction and starvation?
Voting down for trivial agreement. Both stomach stapling and gastric lap bands easily meet this. Do you mean maybe non-surgical methods? That seems more questionable.
I assign p=1 to the proposition that not eating causes significant fat loss. I can’t justify subtracting any particular epsilon, which means to me that p=1-e, where e is too small for me to conceive and apply a number to.
EDIT: I am particularly referring to indefinite periods of perfect fasting.
Then take involuntary starvation. Perhaps you meant “better” in an ethical sense, but I thought you meant in a sense of strict effectiveness.
This proposition is patently false (by indicating that there is a 40% chance that nothing causes better weight loss than placebo), as you admitted with regard to liposuction elsewhere in this thread.
I think you’re nitpicking; if what she’s saying sounds completely obviously unreasonable then it’s probably not what she meant. She means something like “There’s a 60% chance that diets, legal supplements, fasting, and/or exercise, in amounts that Western culture would count as memetically reasonable, and in amounts that can be reasonably expected to be undertaken by members of Western culture, can cause significant weight loss.” To which everyone says, “No, more like 95%”, not “Haha obviously liposuction works, and so does starvation, you imprecise person: next time write a paragraph’s worth of disclaimers and don’t count on the ability of your audience to make charitable interpretations.”
Maybe I have a different idea than you of memetically reasonable, but I’m perfectly happy saying “No, more like 1-10^-30” to your statement as well as hers. Maybe I need to make a top level post here, but I think that it’s a very small minority of humans that are unable to lose weight through diet and exercise, even if the degree of effort required is one not frequently undertaken. I don’t think that the degree of effort required is considered widely unreasonable in Western culture.
My p value is so high because this thread asks us to discount matters of opinion, so the probability that the effort required is beyond what is considered reasonable seems outside the scope. Same for “reasonably expected”. I feel like it’s enough to say that the methods don’t require super-human willpower or vast resources. I think the methods themselves are unquestionable.
It has been remarked in support of that proposition that no fat people came out of Auschwitz (or Singapore, or similar episodes). But is that because they got thin, or did they die before getting thin? Has any research been done on how people of different body types respond to starvation? The full report on this experiment might address that, but the Wiki article doesn’t. However, the volunteers for that experiment were “young, healthy men” volunteering as an alternative to military service, so it’s unlikely that any of them were obese going in.
I think that there are better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. (60%)
ETA: apparently I need to clarify.
It is way more likely than 60% that gastric bypass surgery, liposuction, starvation, and meth will cause fat loss. I am not talking about that. I am talking about healthy diet and exercise. Can most people who want to lose weight do that deliberately, through diet and exercise? I think it’s likely but not certain.
voted up because 60% seems WAAAAAYYYY underconfident to me.
Now that we’re up-voting underconfidence I changed my vote.
From the OP:
I almost want this reworded the opposite way for this reason, as a 40% chance that there are not better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. Even if I didn’t have first and second hand examples to fall back on I don’t see why there is real doubt on this question. Another more interesting variation is, does such a method exist that is practical for a large percentage of people?
Likewise. My p: 99.5%
likewise
shoot… I’m just scared to bet, is all. You can tell I’m no fun at Casino Night.
Ah, but betting for a proposition is equivalent to betting against its opposite. Why are you so certain that there’s no better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss?
But If you do change your mind, please don’t change the original, as then everyone’s comments would be irrelevant.
Absolutely right. This is an important point that many people miss. If you’re uncertain about your estimated probability, or even merely risk averse, then you may want to take neither side of the implied bet. Fine, but at least figure out some odds where you feel like you should have an indifferent expectation.
I think, with some confidence, that there are better-than-placebo methods for causing significant fat loss. The low confidence estimate has more to do with my reluctance to be wrong than anything else.
If I were wrong, it would be because overweight is mostly genetic and irreversible (something I have seen argued and supported with clinical studies.)
I sympathize with this. But I also upvoted the original comment because of it (i.e. I also think you’re underconfident).
Voted down for agreement! (Liposuction… do you mean dietary methods? I’d still agree with you though.)
Edit: On reflection, 60% does seem too low. Changed to upvote.
I meant diet, exercise, and perhaps supplements; liposuction is trivially true.
Generally speaking, most diets and moderate exercise work very well for a year or two. But the shangri-la diet tends to work for as long as you do it (for many/most? people). Also, certain supplements work, but I forgot which. So I gotta agree with you.
For example… just about any stimulant you can get your hands on.
But there were others, I think? User:taw talked about one that you take with caffeine. It might have been a stimulant, though.
ephedrine. It’s called ECA, including aspirin, but that wasn’t used in the studies.
Thanks! :D
For sure. Laxatives. e coli. But yes, there are others with better side effect profiles too. :)
Take with caffeine? More caffeine. That’ll do the trick. :P
Upvoted, because I say diet and exercise work at 85% (for a significant fraction of people; there may be some with unlucky genes who can’t lose weight that way).
Does “method” include “exercise and healthy eating”?
This post has generated so much more controversy than I expected.
I meant exactly exercise and healthy eating! I thought people would assume I meant that. Not gastric bypass surgery, not liposuction, not starvation, not amputating limbs.
Whenever I see someone with one of those badges that says; ’Lose weight now, ask me how!”, I check that they have all their limbs.
That’s ok. Just put an ETA in the top-level comment to clarify that. There’s a lot of wiggle room around “healthy eating” though. Where are you drawing the line between calorie restriction and starvation?
Becoming seriously ill? Better in the sense of losing more weight.
Voting down for trivial agreement. Both stomach stapling and gastric lap bands easily meet this. Do you mean maybe non-surgical methods? That seems more questionable.
Short term or long term? If long, how long?
I assign p=1 to the proposition that not eating causes significant fat loss. I can’t justify subtracting any particular epsilon, which means to me that p=1-e, where e is too small for me to conceive and apply a number to.
EDIT: I am particularly referring to indefinite periods of perfect fasting.
The reason it’s questionable: how long can one not eat? Can most people not eat for long enough?
Then take involuntary starvation. Perhaps you meant “better” in an ethical sense, but I thought you meant in a sense of strict effectiveness.
This proposition is patently false (by indicating that there is a 40% chance that nothing causes better weight loss than placebo), as you admitted with regard to liposuction elsewhere in this thread.
I think you’re nitpicking; if what she’s saying sounds completely obviously unreasonable then it’s probably not what she meant. She means something like “There’s a 60% chance that diets, legal supplements, fasting, and/or exercise, in amounts that Western culture would count as memetically reasonable, and in amounts that can be reasonably expected to be undertaken by members of Western culture, can cause significant weight loss.” To which everyone says, “No, more like 95%”, not “Haha obviously liposuction works, and so does starvation, you imprecise person: next time write a paragraph’s worth of disclaimers and don’t count on the ability of your audience to make charitable interpretations.”
Maybe I have a different idea than you of memetically reasonable, but I’m perfectly happy saying “No, more like 1-10^-30” to your statement as well as hers. Maybe I need to make a top level post here, but I think that it’s a very small minority of humans that are unable to lose weight through diet and exercise, even if the degree of effort required is one not frequently undertaken. I don’t think that the degree of effort required is considered widely unreasonable in Western culture.
My p value is so high because this thread asks us to discount matters of opinion, so the probability that the effort required is beyond what is considered reasonable seems outside the scope. Same for “reasonably expected”. I feel like it’s enough to say that the methods don’t require super-human willpower or vast resources. I think the methods themselves are unquestionable.
It has been remarked in support of that proposition that no fat people came out of Auschwitz (or Singapore, or similar episodes). But is that because they got thin, or did they die before getting thin? Has any research been done on how people of different body types respond to starvation? The full report on this experiment might address that, but the Wiki article doesn’t. However, the volunteers for that experiment were “young, healthy men” volunteering as an alternative to military service, so it’s unlikely that any of them were obese going in.