Ray Audette wrote:

>" Not only in research, but also in the everyday world of politics and
>economics, we would all be better off if more people realized that simple
>nonlinear systems do not nececessarily posses simple dynamical properties."
>    Biologist Robert Mays from his "messianic" paper in Nature         (
>1976)    "The Mathmatical Intuition"
>
>That so many "weight loss experts" show such innumeracy ( and refuse to
>accept my chalange to a swim suit competition) means a great opportunity for
>a class action lawsuit similar to the one won by the FTC against the false
>claims made by leading calorie reductions plans.  Although this legal action
>only resulted in these companies adding small print disclaimers to their ads
>( results not typical, etc ), I feel feel billions of dollars are still on
>the table.
>
>

To say that the relationship between calories and body weight is
nonlinear is one thing; to say there is no relationship is another.
Which do you say?

>In a resent study adolesent offered an unlimmited buffet ate 30% fewer
>calories when offered a high fat selection than a low fat one.  Nothing
>produces saity faster than fat.
>
>

Is it a good thing, then, to eat fewer calories?  Moreover, does this
study actually support the conclusion that you state?  The fact that the
subjects stopped eating after 30% fewer calories does *not* autmatically
imply that they stopped eating because of satiety, because of the simple
fact that satiety is not the only thing that can cause one to stop
eating.  As everyone knows, sometimes we stop eating not out of satiety
but because we don't want any more of what is there, but we want
something else.  Give these same adolescents a buffet of nothing but
different kinds of lettuce; no dressing, just lettuce.  I'll bet $100
they'll eat a lot fewer calories at that buffet than at the high-fat
buffet.  Does that show that nothing produces satiety faster than lettuce?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]