Intuitive Eating and Causation

[TheCaveman]

This post is inspired by another post in in the "LC Research/Media" forum, called "Intuitive Eating". http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=274972 (Cheers Dodger!) I think that is one of the most exciting threads I've seen here.

I'm putting this post here in the War Zone for three reasons: 1) it's tangential to the great discussion there and I don't want to disrupt it, 2) so many people there are SO DAMN CLOSE to getting it and I'd rather they figure it out for themselves, and 3) a few people there are SO FAR AWAY yet keep posting, almost neurotically, in an attempt to shame people into stopping.

What I present here might be thought of as a "crib sheet", or even a "cheat sheet". You know, one of those tiny little slips of paper that you stick in your shirtsleeve right before a physics exam, for easy--if covert--reference?

So for anyone who wants a cheat to the "Intuitive Eating" thread, here's the idea first idea:

Overeating --> Obesity

(The little arrow is causation. Read: Overeating causes obesity.)

The second idea:

Unknown --> Overeating --> Obesity

The third idea:

Overeating <-- Unknown --> Obesity

(These diagrams will explain to about one out of a hundred people what they are struggling to get at in the "Intuitive Eating" thread. For everyone else who has no idea what I'm talking about, well, that's okay.)

For those who's lightbulb has just gone on (send me a PM, and), tell me: Can the first idea possibly be true if the third is still possible?

[TheCaveman]

In the second idea, "Unknown" has to remain unknown in order for the logic to work. It's tempting to treat "Unknown" as a variable and plug values in for it.

But if we wanted to plug values into "Unknown", a typical value might be:

Stress --> Overeating --> Obesity

But if we try to plug values into "Unknown" for the second idea, we are tempted to once again add another logical variable onto the equation, as in:

Unknown --> Stress --> Overeating --> Obesity

This could create an endless string of linear causation that we are trying to avoid by introducing the third idea. (Hint: the third idea is the real winner, and I think explains a lot.)

Maybe another small cheat will help. While contemplating the third idea, I'm reminded of two behaviors that in the past have been viewed as psychosis, but are now easily explained.

The first is blindsight. This is a condition where a person claims not to see (as if they were blind) but shows evidence that they CAN see. In the past, this was considered to be a hysterical condition (crazy), but now, with fMRI and other brain-imagining technologies, we now understand the BEHAVIOR to be caused by brain damage.

Blindsight occurs when a specific part of the visual cortex (in the brain) has been damaged. This damage results in the person having no experience of sight from one eye, like they are blind in one eye. The eye and the optic nerve are not damaged, so they still see, and an fMRI shows that their brain still processes the information from the eye as per usual. But they don't consciously register sight in that eye.

One of the neat tests they devised for this condition is placing an object off to the side out of view of the sighted eye but in full view of the blind eye. Subjects are then told there is an object over there, and are asked to pick it up. Subjects will pick up the object by holding their hand in the correct way before they even touch it or know what the object is (they used a coffee cup and a ball). When the object was a coffee cup, they put their hand sideways and stuck out two fingers to grasp the handle, and when the object was a ball, they put their hand palm down and curved their fingers.

Another test, a bit more on the sadistic side, was while doing another experiment the testers threw an object at the person from their blinded side, and the person ducked out of the way of the object that they had no conscious knowledge of, but behaving exactly as if they had seen it. A bunch of fakers, right?

Another behavior that used to freak people out but that brain imaging has now explained is alien hand syndrome, a neurological disorder where the person experiences one hand as having a mind of its own (think: Dr. Strangelove). These people don't experience willing the hand to do the things it does, and these alien hands are usually pretty active. These people have had some sort of trauma to a middle portion of their frontal lobe on the opposite side of the effected hand. Imagine having to play checkers while your alien hand makes moves that you consciously don't want to make. To my knowledge, experimenters have never tested to see if someone disordered in this way could play a one-person game of checkers. I'd like to see which hand would win, as the alien hand in the experiments would always make logical moves, not just random moves in violation of the rules.

[thinster]

Caveman: I am new to all this, and want to know what is meant by the phrase "Sleeping Controls Eating". I'm not sure if I can find this page again. Can you somehow reply to me,Thinster?

[ItsTheWooo]

This thread was kinda stillborn but I think it's interesting so I'm gonna bump it :)...

Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly.
You are asking if it is possible:
- That "free will" over eating, free of any causation, can cause obesity; that obesity is something that just "happens" when people give up control and/or make bad choices... (e.g. choosing to deprioritize working hard at your job results in your unemployment)
If we assume that this is possible, then:
- Does this make it impossible for something to cause over eating as well as obesity? (e.g. certain "triggers" would cause you to slack off, and those same triggers also cause you to lose your job)

I guess if we validate the idea that over eating as well as obesity can be caused by unknowns then it invalidates the conventional notion that over eating causes obesity period. If we understand these things have causes, you can't securely say it was a clean matter of "over eating and becoming obese". It's impossible to know everything that could cause a result, so how can you ever be sure any given case of obesity/over eating was a nice and simple relationship with no layers or depth.
Even if one perceives that "over eating caused my obesity" was true for them or someone they knew, it's impossible to really know for sure because our perceptions are limited only by what we can see (and ability to understand the significance of what we see). I think this is what you were getting at with your blindsight & alien hand examples later on.

Still I'm not so sure if the first idea invalidates the third or vice versa...
I think the two ideas can exist together, because I don't think it's either or. Like, "cause" is really an inappropriate word in my opinion, contribute is better. For example, we can say a high carbohydrate diet contributes to my over eating, and it also contributes to my tendency to gain fat (independent of overeating). But the first idea is also true because I do acknowledge that for many years I was a "slacker at work" so to speak; my health was so low of a priority that I did very little to learn how to change my condition.

Yes, it is true there are more causes still for my lack of emphasis on health. So it would seem as if everything I am (we are) was a logical result of a prior cause, relationship upon relationships. Still, I find it difficult to believe that some of it just wasn't about my lack of ability/desire/choice to stand up and just take control of the situation. I have faith in the idea of free will. You always have a choice. Maybe it's an illusion, one that causes misappropriated bouts of heart ache and inflated self esteem ... clouds my vision and steers me down the wrong path. Perhaps the real message is to resign our obsession with "control", to accept that we are what we are, that there are things we have no control over that cause things we might not like...that we are small interrelated parts of a big, complex, world. With this acceptance, we can be liberated from emo hangups and have a better ability to observe, perceive, and then act in a way to make our experiences & situations better. Maybe I'm just rambling and projecting my own stuff. Eh. I don't know.

[tom sawyer]

I think that an out-of-control insulin pattern can be the unknown that causes both overeating and obesity. Although there's always going to be some causal link between overeating and obesity. But there are other effects of insulin that are specific to becoming obese, that are not strictly mediated by the act of eating.

I don't exactly see where you're going with this, but I'm off to read the intuitive eating thread.

[tom sawyer]

Just read the thread and man did it ramble, but it was interesting.

Two things came to mind from my own experiences.

First, when I was growing up, mom would restrict our junk food. When I got on my own, I made up it in a big way. So, I can see where deprivation might have negative consequences. On the other hand, I don't need to have a food constantly at my fingertips in order to not feel deprived. I can let the grocery store "store" my forbidden food for me. In this way, it takes a bit of effort to go get some. Which gives me time to either come to my senses or lets me know I really want it.

Second, I lost my weight after getting divorced and living on my own. Given this situation, I could eat only when I was hungry. I didn't have to eat when it was ready, or worry about eating a set number of meals unless my kids were visiting. Its easier to be intuitive when you aren't having to consider several other people's intuitions. In fact, I used to have problems with my ex becuase she was not liable to cook when she wasn't hungry herself. I viewed that as being selfish and self-centered, rather than healthy. She was the thin one though.

[tom sawyer]

I was confusing the terms intuitive and instinctive at first. By the way, there is a way of eating called "intincto" which is instinctive eating, an interesting concept.

I think I have learned to use intuition more as I progress along in maintenance. I think you can learn to be more intuitive.

OK Caveman, time to flesh out your thesis here for those of us (me) who are slow.

[jennlee]

Great article, I have been using a modified version of intuitive eating for some time. It's a difficult task to learn to eat from mouth hunger instead of head hunger, but it does payoff in the end.

[TheCaveman]

I figured Wooo was going to respond either with free will or nature/nurture. The thread was SUPPOSED to be stillborn, but I was the first to reply, so that's what I get.

One more cheat before we get into free will:

Cognitive Load Theory. Baba Shiv studies consumer behavior. A nice study of his I remember reading a few years ago. One group of participants memorized a two-digit number, and another group memorized a seven-digit number. After memorizing, each participant was told to walk into the next room and punch the number into a keypad. Easy, right?

Because there is apparently no limit to the number of college students you can study when you offer free food--each person was told that lunch would be provided. Each person, after memorizing their number and walking into the hallway to the keypad room, passed a table in the hallway with cake, fruit salad, and a sign asking them to pick one or the other before proceeding to the keypad room.

(Let's ignore the carbohydrate content of the choices for a moment and recognize one as healthy and one as not-so-healthy.)

The seven-digit people picked cake more often than the two-digit people. Got more on your mind? Expect poor decisions.

One more cheat:

Neuro-economic discounting. (Stick with me, folks.) Let's say you're planning your low-carb menu for the week. Don't those meals look splendid? Big salads every lunchtime, fine cuts of meat at dinner, steamed veggies, plenty of water, Doc Atkins would be proud. Not a planned cheat anywhere.

However, Tuesday night you ate the whole damn jar of nuts, though. Thursday's ad hoc menu addition was mac and cheese. Friday, snuck a donut from the breakroom. Seven beers on Saturday.

Tonight, I want sugar. In the future, I want what's good for me.

They keep doing this other study over and over with the same results. The movie-selection study, where if you've got a choice of Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, and Schindler's List, for tonight, tomorrow night and a week from today, the smart money is that you're not going to choose to watch Schindler's List tonight.

Tonight, I want sugar-coated entertainment. In the future, I want what's good for me.

Much easier to resolve to quit smoking with a Camel Wide in your mouth than the morning after your last cigarette. Does immediacy have an emotional component that enslaves the logical parts of the brain?

Here's a neuro-economic discounting thought experiment (assuming you like massages):


Would you prefer a 15 minute massage right now, or a 20 minute massage in an hour?
And, would you prefer a 15 minute massage in a week, or a 20 minute massage in a week and an hour?


We value the present much more than the future. You don't need me to tell you that. We all, however, need to be reminded. A lot.

(Thinster, you can't send or receive email until you have a certain number of posts, sorry. Check out http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=196014 for an average thread on a good book.)

[Pointcove]

It seems to me that lowcarbers are the ones who only have to memorize the two digit numbers.